Thank you MF-Warburg What I ndid was to try to understahnd nthe concerns and objections of those opposed to allowing ancient languages, and to write a proposal that would exclude problematic languages, eg those without modern formations, without sufficient competent writers, or those without a significant audience. The “compromise proposal” includes several suggestions from people who objected to ancient languages being considered on principlel, so I believe ithe RFC is complete and sable. While there is still some discussion it is tagential to the proposal draft itself. Thus it is in a position for LangCom to take a look at the text of the proposal and as a Committe either accept or reject it, in part or whole, and either modify the language policy, or not. Then the RFC can be closed.

Hoi, The arguments inherent in the policy are not affected by the "fear mongering" by some. At the same time in the later suggestions there is nothing new. From my perspective there is no reason to revisit the criteria for a new Wikipedia. Thanks, GerardM On Wed, 8 Sept 2021 at 02:00, Phake Nick <c933103(a)gmail.com> wrote:

Hoi, What difference does it make. The policies are clear, the arguments why have not been refuted. The discussions have been followed over time by committee members.. Thanks, GerardM On Wed, 8 Sept 2021 at 14:04, Jim Killock <jim(a)killock.org.uk> wrote:

Dear Committee, I am sorry to write this email in this way and I sincerely ask that you consider it in good faith, I am not attempting to cause trouble, but I would like you to consider it carefully and thoroughly, and come back with a substantive and not knee-jerk response. This I think needs attention from the committee Board liason, as some of the issues go beyond LangCom’s remit, and also reflect on LangCom’s transparency commitments made to the Wikimedia Board. Ancient Language policy The fact of the change of policy for Ancient Languages was made in 2007 and is clear. However, it appears that the Committee was under a great deal of pressure at the time, and there may not have been any public consultation or transparency about why this policy took place, unlike for the Language Proposal policy as a whole, which was discussed. While there may have been no requirements at the time to provide a rationale, people who feel the policy is not set in exactly the right place are left with no formal explanation as to why the Language Committee devised the rules as it did. At least, nobody has responded to my requests for documentation from 2007 showing how the decision was made. If it is or can be made available, that would be great. I have listed what I know at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Start_allowing_ancient… <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Start_allowing_ancient_languages/Appendix_II:_Prior_policy_documents_and_decisions> Charter and transparency The Committee’s Charter states that "The whole set of activities of the language committee is public, and any advice from the community is welcome”. This commitment to transparency is laudable, however as matters stand we do not have transparency as to the reasons why the Ancient Language policy is set as it is. Instead, justifications for it can only be considered to be the Committee member’s opinion about why people in 2007 set set where it is, as the justification for it made at the time appears to be unavailable, undocumented, or lost. This is a problem in itself, but I think is also a large factor in the upset felt by people who find their projects are declined. There is a policy, but it is not explained. the justifications are communicated to them adhoc and it is extremely hard for people understand why Wikimedia has this policy, as it is in fact, unexplained in any formal document. Instead, people whose projects are turned down are asked to accept the adhoc explanations of Wikimedia volunteers. This is bound to cause friction and grievance. If anything can be published from the time, that would of course be very helpful. Clarity about the future of Ancient Languages on Wikimedia A number of well established Ancient Language Wiki (ALW) projects may be neglected in policy terms, as they are regarded as something of an abberation. They are not allowed new Wikis; they are not eligible, This and other structural issues such as a lack geographical focus may cause them should also be considered, not least to reduce the prospect of problems emerging with them in the future. It would be useful for Wikimedia as a whole to reflect on the role and value of ALWs. Evidence based policy Wikimedia as a whole I am sure is committed to evidence-based policy and consultation. I am sure this Committee likewise much prefers to deal with decisions on the basis of evidence, and has to process many complex problems involving difficult to solve issues. This work is extremely important and no doubt carried at well, despite the multiple complexities. The discussions surrounding the Ancient Language policy are difficult to solve. They also may result in little change, affecting few wikis if any. This is understandably going to feel like a low priority for the Committee. However, the current policy probably lacked an application of evidence gathering and consultation when it was created; furthermore there is also a large body of evidence on the performance and potential relevance of these projects to be had, should Wikimedia wish to gather it. I have written an outline of what evidence I think should be gathered before deciding a policy and have had a little feedback on it. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Start_allowing_ancient… The way forward Publish if available, but do not engineering the 2007 decision: I do not think the committee should now reverse engineer the reasons for the 2007 decision, if it turns out to be unavailable, especially as it probably was made without much public consultation or evidence gathering. If the documentation does turn up, it is still twenty years old and there is still a need to take a look at the performance of the current ALWs and think about how they should be best supported. Pause before looking again at the recommendations made on the current RFC. Rather I think there should be a period of evidence gathering and reflection about ALWs. Once this evidence is gathered, some observations and recommendations can flow back to the RFC process. Meta shoud be used to a small open committee to gather evidence. Ideally, one or two LangCom members who are interested in the future of these projects could work with some of the people from the current ALWs to try to gather enough evidence to produce some reasonable basis to move forward. This should also involve some external ancient language and linguistics experts with a background in ancient languages to help shape the evidence gathering and help draw conclusions. Thank you again for your time Jim

Thank you for approving it and taking the time to respond. That is exacly what I mean by “reverse engineering”. If you don’t have the reasoning available, and can’t show the consultation process that helped arrive at this, then any reasoning now is purely gueswork, or the preferred but unconsulted view of the Committee. In essence, it remains an untransparent process and open to accusations of being arbitrary. I don’t think that is a sound way forward. Yes, absolutely. I am at the end of my own intellectual journey on this. I do appreciate I have created a lot of material anjd I would appreciate feedback. The next step IMO is the evidence gathering to see what kind of policy is justifed But also, I believe there is a way forward which would start to deal with the actual substantive problems - that is starting a programme of support for the Ancient Language Wikis or ALWs, once we know what state they are in and what they do well. As I explain at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Start_allowing_ancient… <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Start_allowing_ancient_languages/Appendix_V:_Discussion:_putting_an_''Ancient_Language_strategy''_together> this would require shifting the current policy in order to tackle a lot of problematic practice without it looking like an attempt to push those wikis away.

Dear Gerard Thank you, this kind of feedback is very help. You say: The point of the policy is to explicitly invalidate any and all arguments that were used before. There is no point in looking in older history, at best it shows the genesis of the policy. What I take from this is that (1) The decision was made as an internal matter by LangCom without consultation (2) It is primarily designed to shut down arguments about Ancient Languages I fully sympathise with why you did this, re (2). You received may requests for AL projects that made no sense, some got through the gate no doubt and you needed to make this stop. However the policy has left a lot of unresolved problems, at least for the Latin project, and most likely for Sanskrit and Ancient Chinese, all of whom are disqualified from further progress. There is a question as to how this plays out for potential funding or project building, and how LangCom ensures the existing projects meet their mission (in my view it seems to leave this problem aide, despite the remit of the committee). Finally there is a question as to whether Ancient Greek in particular deserves a shot at a project. My point is simply that issues like this require a consultation process, to test for such problems, and mitigate against them. The current proposal attempt to mitigate such problems by creating a very slightly looser ruleset. As such it is not a consultation on the mitigations and effects of the current policy. So tthe Committee must not simply assume that is if does not like the current RFC it can simply leave the current policy in place. The current policy still lacks consultatation and carries all the rough edges you would expect. Thank you again for responding Jim

Thank you for your time responding. If Latin wants a new kind of wiki, say a Wikiversity wiki, which is more flexible for original content creation and educational materials, the policy bars this from taking place, because all new ALWs are barred, except Wikisource wikis. The same applies for Sanskrit and Ancient Chinese. This is I’m afraid a circular argument: The policy bans ancient languages from a WP; AG has been denied a WP because AG is an ancient language; therefore the policy is correct. I have noted all of the RFCs which appear to have discussed the Ancient Language policy, as opposed to Wiki requests, and I can find no discusson of the policy itself. Please do correct me if I am wrong. I am certainly not accusing anyone of that, but I am drawiting attention to a lack of evidence and a lack of consultation delivering some specific but limited problems in the current policy.

Thank you again Gerard This is very helpful information. I understand that the Committee was created by the Board. I have seen far les about (1) How the Board accepted the revision to the language excluding Ancient Languages; (2) How this was explained to the Board; (3) Whether the Board was given information about any prior consultation, or whether that was not seen as necessary at that point The Board of course will have records, papers and minutes, (maybe public?) so this should not be too hard to find, or to point me to where I can find it. Thank you very much Jim

Dear Gerard, I am sorry you feel your time is being wasted. I am also very surprised how much effort this is taking, especially given that the request for policy change in the RFC is very limited, and would help the Committee deal with issues around the ancient language wikis which are not performing well. Furthermore I have no wish to be a nuisance, rather I would like to work with the Committee to help improve the ability of Ancient Language Wikis (ALWs) to meet WM’s mission. As you say, the policy is clear; the process is now clearer, having found the email archive. This is important, because some members of the Committee want to leave the current policy in place, should the current RFC be rejected. However, that is only reasonable if the policy you have can be seen to be developed fairly and responsibly, and to have dealt with all of the issues properly, at the time. Looking at the email discussion that led to the change I would observe that: The change to the status of Ancient Languages was presented as a minor change to the Language proposal policy The discussion was very short, with just 16 emails sent Only three issues were raised; being the need to meet the mission; a "need for native speakers"; and the need for a “natural audience” There were no mitigations or alternatives discussed There was no mention of a public discussion or consultation, which appears to be a breach of the Committee’s Charter commitment to transparency There was no discussion of whether qualitative factors (ancient versus constructed languages) could be appropriately combined with different treatment of objective factors (numbers of native speakers) which appears to be in breach of the Committee’s Charter, which commits to using objective factors alone. Point six in particular is in need of public consultation and a consensus, and should not be the property of the Committee to determine by itself, or via a Board rubber stamp. All this said, it is easy to say these things in hindsight. I just want to be plain that the current RFC process is already a much more thorough and developed policy process than that in 2007 - quite naturally, given we have 14 years of further experience to apply. A review would be quite natural after this length of time in any case. So this is not meant as criticism, still less a personal one. I would however like the Committee to approach the current RFC positively, and use it to take a fresh look. Thank you again for your time, Jim

Do any of the other Committee members have an opinion about this below? I do not believe it the problem here to be a "process issue”. The orginal consultation was faulty, in breach of the Committee Charter and has produced a problematic AL policy; The Committee’s current is in likely breach of the Committee’ Charter language policy as it is not based on “quantative indicators” but instead changes these indicators according to preference; This tension between the Committee’s Charter and the AL policy is being consulted on now, there is an alternative approach available, but so far the Committee do not seem to wish to respond or to discuss these mitigations Gerard, this does not need a response from you at this stage as we have that already

Thank you Gerard This is helpful. When did the Charter come into effect?

Gerard, you are indeed a master at moving the conversation in the wrong direction, this I am learning. The Committee formed in 2006 and received a Charter in 2007. The language policy was introduced later, but none of this matters. What I need is the opinion of the Committee about my points from yesterday, copied below. In short: The orginal consultation was faulty, in breach of the Committee Charter and has produced a problematic AL policy; The Committee’s current is in likely breach of the Committee’ Charter language policy as it is not based on “quantative indicators” but instead changes these indicators according to preference; This tension between the Committee’s Charter and the AL policy is being consulted on now, there is an alternative approach available, but so far the Committee do not seem to wish to respond or to discuss these mitigations Gerard, I do not need a reply from you. Dear Gerard, I am sorry you feel your time is being wasted. I am also very surprised how much effort this is taking, especially given that the request for policy change in the RFC is very limited, and would help the Committee deal with issues around the ancient language wikis which are not performing well. Furthermore I have no wish to be a nuisance, rather I would like to work with the Committee to help improve the ability of Ancient Language Wikis (ALWs) to meet WM’s mission. As you say, the policy is clear; the process is now clearer, having found the email archive. This is important, because some members of the Committee want to leave the current policy in place, should the current RFC be rejected. However, that is only reasonable if the policy you have can be seen to be developed fairly and responsibly, and to have dealt with all of the issues properly, at the time. Looking at the email discussion that led to the change I would observe that: The change to the status of Ancient Languages was presented as a minor change to the Language proposal policy The discussion was very short, with just 16 emails sent Only three issues were raised; being the need to meet the mission; a "need for native speakers"; and the need for a “natural audience” There were no mitigations or alternatives discussed There was no mention of a public discussion or consultation, which appears to be a breach of the Committee’s Charter commitment to transparency There was no discussion of whether qualitative factors (ancient versus constructed languages) could be appropriately combined with different treatment of objective factors (numbers of native speakers) which appears to be in breach of the Committee’s Charter, which commits to using objective factors alone. Point six in particular is in need of public consultation and a consensus, and should not be the property of the Committee to determine by itself, or via a Board rubber stamp. All this said, it is easy to say these things in hindsight. I just want to be plain that the current RFC process is already a much more thorough and developed policy process than that in 2007 - quite naturally, given we have 14 years of further experience to apply. A review would be quite natural after this length of time in any case. So this is not meant as criticism, still less a personal one. I would however like the Committee to approach the current RFC positively, and use it to take a fresh look. Thank you again for your time,

Hi there, I havew taken the points raised so by the Committee:, which seem to be: (1) We need an eeasy-to-operate policy (2) There needs to be an auidience and benefit to Wikimedia for the project (3) There needs to be quality control Perhaps the way to do this, is to make it clear that the policy only adddresse Classical Languages, and to list those out. This answers the problems identified by the Commiittee in the following ways: (1) The Committee need an eeasy-to-operate policy It is clear which languages are Classical and they are listed in the policy. (2) There needs to be an auidience and benefit to Wikimedia for the project Classical languages typically have audiences with tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of people who are proficient readers and a strong interest in the topic matter associated with them, be it history, theology or culturally significant works. The high level of training of Wiki participants is likely to lead to high quality information transference across language barriers, inclduing onward transfer of information to other major language wikis. (3) There needs to be quality control Both the high levels of tranining available in lassical Languages and the fact they have evolved mechanisms to cope without having native speakers means that quality control is very achievable, although it will need a community to apply it, just as with other Wikis. Thus we have suggested you add the sentence: For the purposes of this policy, Latin, Koine Greek, Classical Chinese and Sanskrit are treated as exceptions, due to their long and continuing traditions of second-language, non-native production, and communities are allowed to apply for new Wikis for these languages. to the current language proposal policy. The suggestion is here https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Start_allowing_ancient… I have also archived the material except for the two proposals ad current dfiscussions. Hope this helps. Jim

Hoi, I am appalled by the continued misrepresentation of the existing language policy and the hyping of the suggested changes. - Latin is an existing Wikipedia, it is outside of the remit of the current policy and that will not change. - 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. - 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. 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 &lt;jim(a)killock.org.uk&gt; 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, 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 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?

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 &lt;gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com&gt; 寫道：

What about other applications for other wikiprojects in Latin? Indeed, the fact that some people write new poems or essays in Classical Chinese does not alter the fact that it is a dead language. But it contradicts your claim that such language would have a closed wordbase and cannot be expanded to express new concepts. And thus nullified such explanation being used as rationale in rejecting wikiprojects written in such ancient language. Gerard Meijssen &lt;gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com&gt; 於 2021年9月22日週三 下午8:25寫道： > > Hoi, > Latin is outside of the remit of the language committee because its Wikipedia already existed. The fact that some people write new poems or essays in Classical Chinese does not alter the fact that it is a dead language, it is not eligible for a Wikipedia. > Thanks, > GerardM > > On Wed, 22 Sept 2021 at 14:13, Phake Nick &lt;c933103(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: >> >> 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 &lt;gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com&gt; 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 &lt;jim(a)killock.org.uk&gt; 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, >>>> 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 >>>> 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 &lt;jim(a)killock.org.uk&gt; wrote: >>>> >>>> Signed PGP part >>>> Der Gerard >>>> >>>> On 20 Sep 2021, at 10:15, Gerard Meijssen &lt;gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com&gt; 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 &lt;jim(a)killock.org.uk&gt; 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 at the RFC, which seems stable to me. >>>>> >>>>> I would like to draw your attention to this part of the preamble >>>>> >>>>> 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(a)lists.wikimedia.org >>>>> To unsubscribe send an email to langcom-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Langcom mailing list -- langcom(a)lists.wikimedia.org >>>> To unsubscribe send an email to langcom-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Langcom mailing list -- langcom(a)lists.wikimedia.org >>>> To unsubscribe send an email to langcom-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Langcom mailing list -- langcom(a)lists.wikimedia.org >>> To unsubscribe send an email to langcom-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Langcom mailing list -- langcom(a)lists.wikimedia.org >> To unsubscribe send an email to langcom-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org > > _______________________________________________ > Langcom mailing list -- langcom(a)lists.wikimedia.org > To unsubscribe send an email to langcom-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org

Why would you describe such practice as "bastardise a dead language", instead of for example, "language revitalization effort"? The Arabic of the Quran wasn't just a historical language, but also a language of a specific form and function written for a particular purpose in some similar ways. That's like saying we cannot recreate and add new words into "Shakespeare's English", which of course we cannot, but of all the ancient languages being granted ISO codes, like for example those that are precedents of modern English, none of them were as narrowly defined as "Shakespeare's English". 在 2021年9月22日週三 22:36，Gerard Meijssen &lt;gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com&gt; 寫道：

Thank you Amir This is a very good point, which has become clear in the later discussions: how successful are these projects and in what way? This has not been evaluated. I have placed a short note about how this might be evaluated here: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Start_allowing_ancient… <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Start_allowing_ancient_languages/Appendix_III:_Current_Ancient_language_assessment> I would be very willing to work with the Committee to find a good way to get this kind of evidence. At the moment whether these projects do ineed meet Wikimedia’s purposes and more narrowly Wikipedia’s seems to be something that nobody can properly answer. As a further process point, this I believe is Wikipedia’s mission and what should be evaluated: Wikipedia is intended to be the largest, most comprehensive, and most widely-available encyclopedia ever written [to] benefit readers by acting as a widely accessible and free encyclopedia; a comprehensive written compendium that contains information on all branches of knowledge. But if there is other language that defines Wikipedia’s purpose, please do point me to it. This seems critical in reaching a common understanding on this matter.

But why only "officially"? For many languages, either endangering or newly revitalizing, official use are the least likely ground they would survive. Like gow long it took for Hebrew revitalization movement to gain ground from.being an ancient language to being an official language somewhere? Languages like Classical Chinese is generally considered ancient language, as people generally do not write in such language anymore in their nornal daily life. It's a literary language, not a spoken language, so no one speak it. But still, it's an language still commonly taught across and beyond Greater China area, and people do use the language to create new content, for instance a number of recent years' "Best Chinese essay writing from China's National university entry exam", was written in Classical Chinese, reflecting the language's continued usage, including usage for content creation, despite being seen as a historical language. Indeed, it's unavoidable that words from.old languages in their original meaning might not be sufficient to reflect new cobceot and thus new word are needed, but how would it be different from some living smaller languages, or even larger languages like Japanese or Chinese or English, which saw the import of foreign culture and technology throughout their history? For example, the word "wiki", is a word which existed in no language other than Hawaiian, and even in Hawaiian the word does not mean what we're now using it on this website, but does that prohibit all languages around the world, be it living or not, to simply borrow such term into their vocabulary and use them as part of the language? If let say, someone wrote a Classical Chinese sentence, 維基乃吾所欲, with 維基 being a common transliteration and WMF trademarked term for "Wiki", and 乃吾所欲 mean "is what I want", does that make the whole sentence "Wiki is what I want" not Classical Chinese simply because it included a transliteration odmf the modern word "Wiki", in the same way the word "Wiki" is being transliterated into every other languages around the world? The term Television is a term invented in English, with tele- meaning faraway, and vision meaning vision. In modern Japanese, the term is simply transliterated and shortened from English, into "Terebi". In modern Chinese, the term is translated as 電視, meaning "Electric vision". Why there need to be a formal institute using the language, instead of some general committee around the world, using a language, in.order for new concepts to be officially accepted as translated into historical languages, and cannot achieve the same among communities of.old language users, especially when such communities are usually where endangered languages would last stay and where historical languages would first revitalize? 在 2021年9月9日週四 19:01，Ilario Valdelli &lt;ivaldelli(a)wikimedia.ch&gt; 寫道：