Thank you for your kind explanation.

If this can be understood as the relationship between Standard Arabic (ISO 639:arb) and Arabic (ISO 639:ara), then zgh is not a distinct language because it is just a standard representation of Berber languages. This is true even in light of the current LPP, which excludes different written forms of any language.

Therefore, it seems that eligibility for this language cannot be recognized.

Sotiale

2023년 8월 16일 (수) 오후 10:48, Anass Sedrati sedranas@gmail.com님이 작성:

Hello,

I am very familiar with this case as I come myself from Morocco and speak Berber. The standard Tamazight ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Moroccan_Amazigh) is not a spoken language, but only a written one. It was created by the official Academy of Berber languages in Morocco ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Institute_of_Amazigh_Culture) in an attempt to standardize the Berber languages, as there are many of them spoken in Morocco (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berber_languages).

So to answer you, standard Tamazight is exactly like modern standard Arabic (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_Standard_Arabic). It is a standardized language with rules, but not a spoken one (nobody speaks standard Arabic as a mother tongue, every Arab country has its own dialect).

This is to explain that even if it not native, Zgh can be treated as modern standard Arabic in terms of linguistics. I hope that this gives a bit of context, but I am happy to expand on any aspect if you have additional questions!

Best regards,

Anass

On Wed, Aug 16, 2023 at 3:00 PM Sotiale Wiki sotiale.wm@gmail.com wrote:

...

Hi all.

I'm not familiar with the Moroccan languages, so I'd love to hear from other colleagues.

I'm considering this language project as a potential candidate for approval, but I'm wondering if this is a standardization of other languages, or a distinct language from others?

Since this site[1] states that there are no native speakers, I wondered if this was just standardization of other languages(the case that native speakers have a standardized language while using their own languages).

[1] https://www.ethnologue.com/language/zgh/

Sotiale

https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail 바이러스가 없습니다.www.avast.com https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail <#m_-1496450384923849562_m_5794971244151197459_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> _______________________________________________ Langcom mailing list -- langcom@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe send an email to langcom-leave@lists.wikimedia.org

--

*Anass SEDRATI* *(+46) 70 508 51 07* _______________________________________________ Langcom mailing list -- langcom@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe send an email to langcom-leave@lists.wikimedia.org

Hello Sotiale and thank you for your answer,

Sorry for my late reply as I was travelling back from Singapore and had also other engagements.

So regarding your argumentation, if you consider zgh not a distinct language "because it is just a standard representation of Berber languages", then we have also to consider standard Arabic (ISO 639:ara) not a distinct language because it is not spoken in any country/region and is "a standard representation of Arabic languages". Of course, there are many more sources and books in standard Arabic due to religious and historical reasons, but it is still a standardized language, and only a written one. This said, it will of course never be considered to close the Arabic Wikipedia because of it. Therefore, it can be really tricky to base the decisions on this argument, although it is understandable that some languages are "bigger" or more established than others. What do you think?

Best regards,

Anass

On Fri, Aug 18, 2023 at 3:08 PM MF-Warburg mfwarburg@googlemail.com wrote:

NB: there has also been a discussion at < https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikipedia_Morocca.... I believe there are several requests open for related languages. It would be good to have some clarity to avoid the community being split into multiple incubator test-wikis.

Am Fr., 18. Aug. 2023 um 14:38 Uhr schrieb Sotiale Wiki < sotiale.wm@gmail.com>:

...

Thank you for your kind explanation.

If this can be understood as the relationship between Standard Arabic (ISO 639:arb) and Arabic (ISO 639:ara), then zgh is not a distinct language because it is just a standard representation of Berber languages. This is true even in light of the current LPP, which excludes different written forms of any language.

Therefore, it seems that eligibility for this language cannot be recognized.

Sotiale

2023년 8월 16일 (수) 오후 10:48, Anass Sedrati sedranas@gmail.com님이 작성:

...

Hello,

I am very familiar with this case as I come myself from Morocco and speak Berber. The standard Tamazight ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Moroccan_Amazigh) is not a spoken language, but only a written one. It was created by the official Academy of Berber languages in Morocco ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Institute_of_Amazigh_Culture) in an attempt to standardize the Berber languages, as there are many of them spoken in Morocco (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berber_languages).

So to answer you, standard Tamazight is exactly like modern standard Arabic (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_Standard_Arabic). It is a standardized language with rules, but not a spoken one (nobody speaks standard Arabic as a mother tongue, every Arab country has its own dialect).

This is to explain that even if it not native, Zgh can be treated as modern standard Arabic in terms of linguistics. I hope that this gives a bit of context, but I am happy to expand on any aspect if you have additional questions!

Best regards,

Anass

On Wed, Aug 16, 2023 at 3:00 PM Sotiale Wiki sotiale.wm@gmail.com wrote:

...

Hi all.

I'm not familiar with the Moroccan languages, so I'd love to hear from other colleagues.

I'm considering this language project as a potential candidate for approval, but I'm wondering if this is a standardization of other languages, or a distinct language from others?

Since this site[1] states that there are no native speakers, I wondered if this was just standardization of other languages(the case that native speakers have a standardized language while using their own languages).

[1] https://www.ethnologue.com/language/zgh/

Sotiale

https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail 바이러스가 없습니다.www.avast.com https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail <#m_5983961874573513948_m_-52777032840040729_m_-1496450384923849562_m_5794971244151197459_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> _______________________________________________ Langcom mailing list -- langcom@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe send an email to langcom-leave@lists.wikimedia.org

--

*Anass SEDRATI* *(+46) 70 508 51 07* _______________________________________________ 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

I don't understand the distinction you are making between "Arabic" and "Standard Arabic" here.

If anything, a written standard form of a language/macrolanguage/dialect continuum is very suitable for having a Wikipedia, precisely because it can unite the efforts of mutually understandable projects into one wiki instead of many.

Sotiale Wiki sotiale.wm@gmail.com schrieb am Sa., 26. Aug. 2023, 02:56:

Hi.

Standard Arabic is arb (Arabic: ara) and still if someone posts a new language request for Wp/arb, it won't be eligible. Unless the speakers of Arabic Wikipedia are unable to communicate in Standard Arabic. But I don't think there's any reason a native speaker of Arabic can't speak Standard Arabic. So there is no reason for existing Arabic Wikipedia to be disqualified for this reason, but even so, the Arabic Wikipedia was created prior to the LPP and is therefore unaffected.

The requirement to be a distinct language is to ensure that there are no multiple Wikipedias for a language that is sufficiently communicative at the dialect level equivalent(If this were incomprehensible to native speakers, it would have been recognized as a separate language). In general, these branches are likely for political reasons, which may be on-wiki as well as off-wiki reasons. This permission of Wikipedia jeopardizes NPOV by creating Wikipedia with different views of the same language for that purpose. Even if it has no such purpose, it is likely to be abused as such.

Sotiale

https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail 바이러스가 없습니다.www.avast.com https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail <#m_-4434755659234619680_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>

2023년 8월 26일 (토) 오전 3:32, Anass Sedrati sedranas@gmail.com님이 작성:

...

Hello Sotiale and thank you for your answer,

Sorry for my late reply as I was travelling back from Singapore and had also other engagements.

So regarding your argumentation, if you consider zgh not a distinct language "because it is just a standard representation of Berber languages", then we have also to consider standard Arabic (ISO 639:ara) not a distinct language because it is not spoken in any country/region and is "a standard representation of Arabic languages". Of course, there are many more sources and books in standard Arabic due to religious and historical reasons, but it is still a standardized language, and only a written one. This said, it will of course never be considered to close the Arabic Wikipedia because of it. Therefore, it can be really tricky to base the decisions on this argument, although it is understandable that some languages are "bigger" or more established than others. What do you think?

Best regards,

Anass

On Fri, Aug 18, 2023 at 3:08 PM MF-Warburg mfwarburg@googlemail.com wrote:

...

NB: there has also been a discussion at < https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikipedia_Morocca.... I believe there are several requests open for related languages. It would be good to have some clarity to avoid the community being split into multiple incubator test-wikis.

Am Fr., 18. Aug. 2023 um 14:38 Uhr schrieb Sotiale Wiki < sotiale.wm@gmail.com>:

...

Thank you for your kind explanation.

If this can be understood as the relationship between Standard Arabic (ISO 639:arb) and Arabic (ISO 639:ara), then zgh is not a distinct language because it is just a standard representation of Berber languages. This is true even in light of the current LPP, which excludes different written forms of any language.

Therefore, it seems that eligibility for this language cannot be recognized.

Sotiale

2023년 8월 16일 (수) 오후 10:48, Anass Sedrati sedranas@gmail.com님이 작성:

...

Hello,

I am very familiar with this case as I come myself from Morocco and speak Berber. The standard Tamazight ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Moroccan_Amazigh) is not a spoken language, but only a written one. It was created by the official Academy of Berber languages in Morocco ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Institute_of_Amazigh_Culture) in an attempt to standardize the Berber languages, as there are many of them spoken in Morocco (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berber_languages).

So to answer you, standard Tamazight is exactly like modern standard Arabic (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_Standard_Arabic). It is a standardized language with rules, but not a spoken one (nobody speaks standard Arabic as a mother tongue, every Arab country has its own dialect).

This is to explain that even if it not native, Zgh can be treated as modern standard Arabic in terms of linguistics. I hope that this gives a bit of context, but I am happy to expand on any aspect if you have additional questions!

Best regards,

Anass

On Wed, Aug 16, 2023 at 3:00 PM Sotiale Wiki sotiale.wm@gmail.com wrote:

...

Hi all.

I'm not familiar with the Moroccan languages, so I'd love to hear from other colleagues.

I'm considering this language project as a potential candidate for approval, but I'm wondering if this is a standardization of other languages, or a distinct language from others?

Since this site[1] states that there are no native speakers, I wondered if this was just standardization of other languages(the case that native speakers have a standardized language while using their own languages).

[1] https://www.ethnologue.com/language/zgh/

Sotiale

https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail 바이러스가 없습니다.www.avast.com https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail <#m_-4434755659234619680_m_3445872535440906073_m_5983961874573513948_m_-52777032840040729_m_-1496450384923849562_m_5794971244151197459_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> _______________________________________________ Langcom mailing list -- langcom@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe send an email to langcom-leave@lists.wikimedia.org

--

*Anass SEDRATI* *(+46) 70 508 51 07* _______________________________________________ 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

--

*Anass SEDRATI* *(+46) 70 508 51 07* _______________________________________________ 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

Sorry, I think my explanation was inadequately explained and there is some confusion. Perhaps I misused the word dialect. The meaning of the dialect I wrote in the mail meant that they were so similar that they could not be constituted as independent languages. In this respect, dialects assigned ISO codes do not have the same meaning.

And there seems to be something I'm misunderstanding, and something that's a bit confusing. It has generally been a form of recognizing individual languages since the existence of macrolanguages, and what is being discussed now is, as I understand it, understood to be a standardized form in individual languages. For example, so far ar and zh (established Wikipedia) already exist and have been recognized forms of their individual languages. Now it seems to be the opposite way. Not from this point of view, I looked at it in terms of the standardization or alphabet of the same language.

To summarize easily(albeit a very poor summary), ar or zh are standardized forms, and since zgh is also a standardized form, it is understood that they are the same. Is the summary correct?

Sotiale

https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail 바이러스가 없습니다.www.avast.com https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>

2023년 8월 26일 (토) 오후 4:49, Anass Sedrati sedranas@gmail.com님이 작성:

Hello colleagues,

I would like to make some clarifications to avoid confusion. I know this subject very well because it is my native language and it is the reality where I am living my everyday life :D

1. What is called Arabic is not one single language, it is a family of

"dialects" ranging from Mauritania to Irak, and not always mutually intelligible. This is the very reason why for example there is Moroccan Arabic Wikipedia (ary), or the egyptian one (arz). When you say X speaks Arabic, maybe he speaks Algerian or Yemeni, and they might not understand each other at all.

2. In the "Arabic" countries, people speak their own dialects, but in

school they learn to write in the "Standard Arabic". Nobody speaks Standard Arabic, it is just a written text. People who did not go to school from these countries do not speak "standard Arabic", and it is not a native language to anyone.

3. There is a confusion about the fact the because someone comes from an

"Arabic" country that they speak "Standard Arabic", but it is not the case. They speak the dialect of their country https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varieties_of_Arabic, which can be considered as a language. Maltese https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maltese_language is actually one of these, and is considered its own language because of historial reasons, and nobody in Malta is considered to speak "Arabic".

4. The differences between "Standard Arabic" and the countries dialects

are enormous, and if people do not go to school (and study that language 12 years), they will not be able to understand it. So "Standard Arabic" is not just the writing of dialects, it is completely different especially for those coming from the Maghreb region, as it is people from the Middle East who set the rules. Dialects have their own rules, and this is why they have their own wikis (again ary, and arz :)

All this is to say that what is called "Arabic", spoken by over 300 million people, is the written "Standard Arabic", and that it is not native or spoken by anybody, but still considered as one of the biggest languages of the world.

The reason why I am giving all these facts and clarifications, is to explain that it is exactly the same for Berber languages https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berber_languages. There are many Berber languages that are not always mutually intelligible, and each one of them has its own ISO code (like Arabic dialects). One day in 2001, the Royal Academy in Morocco worked on creating a standard written version of Berber languages (zgh), and it is what is taught in schools in Morocco (like Arabic, that was standardized in 19th century). What I am trying to say is that zgh (the written standard of Berbers), is the same as the modern standard Arabic (the written standard of Arabics). Modern standard Arabic (ar) has its Wiki with over a million articles, so why wouldn't zgh have its own? The only difference is that standard Arabic was made in 19th centruy and is supported by many states, while zgh started in 2001 and is only in Morocco.

I hope that this clarifies the picture :)

Best regards,

Anass

On Sat, Aug 26, 2023 at 9:18 AM MF-Warburg mfwarburg@googlemail.com wrote:

...

I don't understand the distinction you are making between "Arabic" and "Standard Arabic" here.

If anything, a written standard form of a language/macrolanguage/dialect continuum is very suitable for having a Wikipedia, precisely because it can unite the efforts of mutually understandable projects into one wiki instead of many.

Sotiale Wiki sotiale.wm@gmail.com schrieb am Sa., 26. Aug. 2023, 02:56:

...

Hi.

Standard Arabic is arb (Arabic: ara) and still if someone posts a new language request for Wp/arb, it won't be eligible. Unless the speakers of Arabic Wikipedia are unable to communicate in Standard Arabic. But I don't think there's any reason a native speaker of Arabic can't speak Standard Arabic. So there is no reason for existing Arabic Wikipedia to be disqualified for this reason, but even so, the Arabic Wikipedia was created prior to the LPP and is therefore unaffected.

The requirement to be a distinct language is to ensure that there are no multiple Wikipedias for a language that is sufficiently communicative at the dialect level equivalent(If this were incomprehensible to native speakers, it would have been recognized as a separate language). In general, these branches are likely for political reasons, which may be on-wiki as well as off-wiki reasons. This permission of Wikipedia jeopardizes NPOV by creating Wikipedia with different views of the same language for that purpose. Even if it has no such purpose, it is likely to be abused as such.

Sotiale

https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail 바이러스가 없습니다.www.avast.com https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail <#m_3035785885715815383_m_1434175820618040698_m_-4434755659234619680_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>

2023년 8월 26일 (토) 오전 3:32, Anass Sedrati sedranas@gmail.com님이 작성:

...

Hello Sotiale and thank you for your answer,

Sorry for my late reply as I was travelling back from Singapore and had also other engagements.

So regarding your argumentation, if you consider zgh not a distinct language "because it is just a standard representation of Berber languages", then we have also to consider standard Arabic (ISO 639:ara) not a distinct language because it is not spoken in any country/region and is "a standard representation of Arabic languages". Of course, there are many more sources and books in standard Arabic due to religious and historical reasons, but it is still a standardized language, and only a written one. This said, it will of course never be considered to close the Arabic Wikipedia because of it. Therefore, it can be really tricky to base the decisions on this argument, although it is understandable that some languages are "bigger" or more established than others. What do you think?

Best regards,

Anass

On Fri, Aug 18, 2023 at 3:08 PM MF-Warburg mfwarburg@googlemail.com wrote:

...

NB: there has also been a discussion at < https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikipedia_Morocca.... I believe there are several requests open for related languages. It would be good to have some clarity to avoid the community being split into multiple incubator test-wikis.

Am Fr., 18. Aug. 2023 um 14:38 Uhr schrieb Sotiale Wiki < sotiale.wm@gmail.com>:

...

Thank you for your kind explanation.

If this can be understood as the relationship between Standard Arabic (ISO 639:arb) and Arabic (ISO 639:ara), then zgh is not a distinct language because it is just a standard representation of Berber languages. This is true even in light of the current LPP, which excludes different written forms of any language.

Therefore, it seems that eligibility for this language cannot be recognized.

Sotiale

2023년 8월 16일 (수) 오후 10:48, Anass Sedrati sedranas@gmail.com님이 작성:

> Hello, > > I am very familiar with this case as I come myself from Morocco and > speak Berber. The standard Tamazight ( > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Moroccan_Amazigh) is not a > spoken language, but only a written one. It was created by the official > Academy of Berber languages in Morocco ( > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Institute_of_Amazigh_Culture) > in an attempt to standardize the Berber languages, as there are many of > them spoken in Morocco ( > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berber_languages). > > So to answer you, standard Tamazight is exactly like modern standard > Arabic (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_Standard_Arabic). It > is a standardized language with rules, but not a spoken one (nobody speaks > standard Arabic as a mother tongue, every Arab country has its own dialect). > > This is to explain that even if it not native, Zgh can be treated as > modern standard Arabic in terms of linguistics. I hope that this gives a > bit of context, but I am happy to expand on any aspect if you have > additional questions! > > Best regards, > > Anass > > On Wed, Aug 16, 2023 at 3:00 PM Sotiale Wiki sotiale.wm@gmail.com > wrote: > >> Hi all. >> >> I'm not familiar with the Moroccan languages, so I'd love to hear >> from other colleagues. >> >> I'm considering this language project as a potential candidate for >> approval, but I'm wondering if this is a standardization of other >> languages, or a distinct language from others? >> >> Since this site[1] states that there are no native speakers, I >> wondered if this was just standardization of other languages(the case that >> native speakers have a standardized language while using their own >> languages). >> >> [1] https://www.ethnologue.com/language/zgh/ >> >> Sotiale >> >> >> https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail 바이러스가 >> 없습니다.www.avast.com >> https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail >> <#m_3035785885715815383_m_1434175820618040698_m_-4434755659234619680_m_3445872535440906073_m_5983961874573513948_m_-52777032840040729_m_-1496450384923849562_m_5794971244151197459_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> >> _______________________________________________ >> Langcom mailing list -- langcom@lists.wikimedia.org >> To unsubscribe send an email to langcom-leave@lists.wikimedia.org >> > > > -- > ----------------------------------------------------- > *Anass SEDRATI* > *(+46) 70 508 51 07* > _______________________________________________ > 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

--

*Anass SEDRATI* *(+46) 70 508 51 07* _______________________________________________ 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

--

*Anass SEDRATI* *(+46) 70 508 51 07* _______________________________________________ Langcom mailing list -- langcom@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe send an email to langcom-leave@lists.wikimedia.org

Hoi, There may be some who consider languages in the Arabic family as ineligible. This is not the case, one example is the Egyptian Arabic Wikipedia. The notion that everyone who speaks one kind of Arabic understands every other version of Arabic is wrong.

There are many languages derived from Arabic, all have their own ISO code they may all have their own dialects. The notion of politics is EXACTLY why many people want to standardise on one Arabic Wikipedia. Thanks, GerardM

On Sat, 26 Aug 2023 at 02:56, Sotiale Wiki sotiale.wm@gmail.com wrote:

Hi.

Standard Arabic is arb (Arabic: ara) and still if someone posts a new language request for Wp/arb, it won't be eligible. Unless the speakers of Arabic Wikipedia are unable to communicate in Standard Arabic. But I don't think there's any reason a native speaker of Arabic can't speak Standard Arabic. So there is no reason for existing Arabic Wikipedia to be disqualified for this reason, but even so, the Arabic Wikipedia was created prior to the LPP and is therefore unaffected.

The requirement to be a distinct language is to ensure that there are no multiple Wikipedias for a language that is sufficiently communicative at the dialect level equivalent(If this were incomprehensible to native speakers, it would have been recognized as a separate language). In general, these branches are likely for political reasons, which may be on-wiki as well as off-wiki reasons. This permission of Wikipedia jeopardizes NPOV by creating Wikipedia with different views of the same language for that purpose. Even if it has no such purpose, it is likely to be abused as such.

Sotiale

https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail 바이러스가 없습니다.www.avast.com https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail <#m_8888600196279916464_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>

2023년 8월 26일 (토) 오전 3:32, Anass Sedrati sedranas@gmail.com님이 작성:

...

Hello Sotiale and thank you for your answer,

Sorry for my late reply as I was travelling back from Singapore and had also other engagements.

So regarding your argumentation, if you consider zgh not a distinct language "because it is just a standard representation of Berber languages", then we have also to consider standard Arabic (ISO 639:ara) not a distinct language because it is not spoken in any country/region and is "a standard representation of Arabic languages". Of course, there are many more sources and books in standard Arabic due to religious and historical reasons, but it is still a standardized language, and only a written one. This said, it will of course never be considered to close the Arabic Wikipedia because of it. Therefore, it can be really tricky to base the decisions on this argument, although it is understandable that some languages are "bigger" or more established than others. What do you think?

Best regards,

Anass

On Fri, Aug 18, 2023 at 3:08 PM MF-Warburg mfwarburg@googlemail.com wrote:

...

NB: there has also been a discussion at < https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikipedia_Morocca.... I believe there are several requests open for related languages. It would be good to have some clarity to avoid the community being split into multiple incubator test-wikis.

Am Fr., 18. Aug. 2023 um 14:38 Uhr schrieb Sotiale Wiki < sotiale.wm@gmail.com>:

...

Thank you for your kind explanation.

If this can be understood as the relationship between Standard Arabic (ISO 639:arb) and Arabic (ISO 639:ara), then zgh is not a distinct language because it is just a standard representation of Berber languages. This is true even in light of the current LPP, which excludes different written forms of any language.

Therefore, it seems that eligibility for this language cannot be recognized.

Sotiale

2023년 8월 16일 (수) 오후 10:48, Anass Sedrati sedranas@gmail.com님이 작성:

...

Hello,

I am very familiar with this case as I come myself from Morocco and speak Berber. The standard Tamazight ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Moroccan_Amazigh) is not a spoken language, but only a written one. It was created by the official Academy of Berber languages in Morocco ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Institute_of_Amazigh_Culture) in an attempt to standardize the Berber languages, as there are many of them spoken in Morocco (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berber_languages).

So to answer you, standard Tamazight is exactly like modern standard Arabic (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_Standard_Arabic). It is a standardized language with rules, but not a spoken one (nobody speaks standard Arabic as a mother tongue, every Arab country has its own dialect).

This is to explain that even if it not native, Zgh can be treated as modern standard Arabic in terms of linguistics. I hope that this gives a bit of context, but I am happy to expand on any aspect if you have additional questions!

Best regards,

Anass

On Wed, Aug 16, 2023 at 3:00 PM Sotiale Wiki sotiale.wm@gmail.com wrote:

...

Hi all.

I'm not familiar with the Moroccan languages, so I'd love to hear from other colleagues.

I'm considering this language project as a potential candidate for approval, but I'm wondering if this is a standardization of other languages, or a distinct language from others?

Since this site[1] states that there are no native speakers, I wondered if this was just standardization of other languages(the case that native speakers have a standardized language while using their own languages).

[1] https://www.ethnologue.com/language/zgh/

Sotiale

https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail 바이러스가 없습니다.www.avast.com https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail <#m_8888600196279916464_m_3445872535440906073_m_5983961874573513948_m_-52777032840040729_m_-1496450384923849562_m_5794971244151197459_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> _______________________________________________ Langcom mailing list -- langcom@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe send an email to langcom-leave@lists.wikimedia.org

--

*Anass SEDRATI* *(+46) 70 508 51 07* _______________________________________________ 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

--

*Anass SEDRATI* *(+46) 70 508 51 07* _______________________________________________ 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

Hello Jon,

Yes I confirm that I can verify the content (although I am not active in that Wiki due to lack of time mainly). I can check it in some weeks (now fully occupied with Indaba preparations), and I can return to you with a status about it.

Thank you for your trust!

Best regards,

Anass

On Thu, Oct 12, 2023 at 3:23 PM Jon Harald Søby jhsoby@gmail.com wrote:

Hello folks,

I would like to suggest the approval of this test wiki. Any objections? Anass can surely verify the content personally, I don't think we need any external verification in this case.

lør. 26. aug. 2023 kl. 12:48 skrev Gerard Meijssen < gerard.meijssen@gmail.com>:

...

Hoi, There may be some who consider languages in the Arabic family as ineligible. This is not the case, one example is the Egyptian Arabic Wikipedia. The notion that everyone who speaks one kind of Arabic understands every other version of Arabic is wrong.

There are many languages derived from Arabic, all have their own ISO code they may all have their own dialects. The notion of politics is EXACTLY why many people want to standardise on one Arabic Wikipedia. Thanks, GerardM

On Sat, 26 Aug 2023 at 02:56, Sotiale Wiki sotiale.wm@gmail.com wrote:

...

Hi.

Standard Arabic is arb (Arabic: ara) and still if someone posts a new language request for Wp/arb, it won't be eligible. Unless the speakers of Arabic Wikipedia are unable to communicate in Standard Arabic. But I don't think there's any reason a native speaker of Arabic can't speak Standard Arabic. So there is no reason for existing Arabic Wikipedia to be disqualified for this reason, but even so, the Arabic Wikipedia was created prior to the LPP and is therefore unaffected.

The requirement to be a distinct language is to ensure that there are no multiple Wikipedias for a language that is sufficiently communicative at the dialect level equivalent(If this were incomprehensible to native speakers, it would have been recognized as a separate language). In general, these branches are likely for political reasons, which may be on-wiki as well as off-wiki reasons. This permission of Wikipedia jeopardizes NPOV by creating Wikipedia with different views of the same language for that purpose. Even if it has no such purpose, it is likely to be abused as such.

Sotiale

https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail 바이러스가 없습니다.www.avast.com https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail <#m_-691553891053305514_m_922395621415868508_m_8888600196279916464_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>

2023년 8월 26일 (토) 오전 3:32, Anass Sedrati sedranas@gmail.com님이 작성:

...

Hello Sotiale and thank you for your answer,

Sorry for my late reply as I was travelling back from Singapore and had also other engagements.

So regarding your argumentation, if you consider zgh not a distinct language "because it is just a standard representation of Berber languages", then we have also to consider standard Arabic (ISO 639:ara) not a distinct language because it is not spoken in any country/region and is "a standard representation of Arabic languages". Of course, there are many more sources and books in standard Arabic due to religious and historical reasons, but it is still a standardized language, and only a written one. This said, it will of course never be considered to close the Arabic Wikipedia because of it. Therefore, it can be really tricky to base the decisions on this argument, although it is understandable that some languages are "bigger" or more established than others. What do you think?

Best regards,

Anass

On Fri, Aug 18, 2023 at 3:08 PM MF-Warburg mfwarburg@googlemail.com wrote:

...

NB: there has also been a discussion at < https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikipedia_Morocca.... I believe there are several requests open for related languages. It would be good to have some clarity to avoid the community being split into multiple incubator test-wikis.

Am Fr., 18. Aug. 2023 um 14:38 Uhr schrieb Sotiale Wiki < sotiale.wm@gmail.com>:

...

Thank you for your kind explanation.

If this can be understood as the relationship between Standard Arabic (ISO 639:arb) and Arabic (ISO 639:ara), then zgh is not a distinct language because it is just a standard representation of Berber languages. This is true even in light of the current LPP, which excludes different written forms of any language.

Therefore, it seems that eligibility for this language cannot be recognized.

Sotiale

2023년 8월 16일 (수) 오후 10:48, Anass Sedrati sedranas@gmail.com님이 작성:

> Hello, > > I am very familiar with this case as I come myself from Morocco and > speak Berber. The standard Tamazight ( > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Moroccan_Amazigh) is not a > spoken language, but only a written one. It was created by the official > Academy of Berber languages in Morocco ( > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Institute_of_Amazigh_Culture) > in an attempt to standardize the Berber languages, as there are many of > them spoken in Morocco ( > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berber_languages). > > So to answer you, standard Tamazight is exactly like modern standard > Arabic (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_Standard_Arabic). It > is a standardized language with rules, but not a spoken one (nobody speaks > standard Arabic as a mother tongue, every Arab country has its own dialect). > > This is to explain that even if it not native, Zgh can be treated as > modern standard Arabic in terms of linguistics. I hope that this gives a > bit of context, but I am happy to expand on any aspect if you have > additional questions! > > Best regards, > > Anass > > On Wed, Aug 16, 2023 at 3:00 PM Sotiale Wiki sotiale.wm@gmail.com > wrote: > >> Hi all. >> >> I'm not familiar with the Moroccan languages, so I'd love to hear >> from other colleagues. >> >> I'm considering this language project as a potential candidate for >> approval, but I'm wondering if this is a standardization of other >> languages, or a distinct language from others? >> >> Since this site[1] states that there are no native speakers, I >> wondered if this was just standardization of other languages(the case that >> native speakers have a standardized language while using their own >> languages). >> >> [1] https://www.ethnologue.com/language/zgh/ >> >> Sotiale >> >> >> https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail 바이러스가 >> 없습니다.www.avast.com >> https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail >> <#m_-691553891053305514_m_922395621415868508_m_8888600196279916464_m_3445872535440906073_m_5983961874573513948_m_-52777032840040729_m_-1496450384923849562_m_5794971244151197459_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> >> _______________________________________________ >> Langcom mailing list -- langcom@lists.wikimedia.org >> To unsubscribe send an email to langcom-leave@lists.wikimedia.org >> > > > -- > ----------------------------------------------------- > *Anass SEDRATI* > *(+46) 70 508 51 07* > _______________________________________________ > 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

--

*Anass SEDRATI* *(+46) 70 508 51 07* _______________________________________________ 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

-- mvh Jon Harald Søby _______________________________________________ Langcom mailing list -- langcom@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe send an email to langcom-leave@lists.wikimedia.org

I have posted about this on Talk:Language committee now: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Language_committee#Approval_of_the_Moro...

tor. 12. okt. 2023 kl. 22:44 skrev Tochi Precious <tochiprecious2@gmail.com

:

I actually went through it this afternoon and saw how engaged and active it has been for 3 years. I recommend the approval.

---

Tochi

On Thu, Oct 12, 2023, 2:23 PM Jon Harald Søby jhsoby@gmail.com wrote:

...

Hello folks,

I would like to suggest the approval of this test wiki. Any objections? Anass can surely verify the content personally, I don't think we need any external verification in this case.

lør. 26. aug. 2023 kl. 12:48 skrev Gerard Meijssen < gerard.meijssen@gmail.com>:

...

Hoi, There may be some who consider languages in the Arabic family as ineligible. This is not the case, one example is the Egyptian Arabic Wikipedia. The notion that everyone who speaks one kind of Arabic understands every other version of Arabic is wrong.

There are many languages derived from Arabic, all have their own ISO code they may all have their own dialects. The notion of politics is EXACTLY why many people want to standardise on one Arabic Wikipedia. Thanks, GerardM

On Sat, 26 Aug 2023 at 02:56, Sotiale Wiki sotiale.wm@gmail.com wrote:

...

Hi.

Standard Arabic is arb (Arabic: ara) and still if someone posts a new language request for Wp/arb, it won't be eligible. Unless the speakers of Arabic Wikipedia are unable to communicate in Standard Arabic. But I don't think there's any reason a native speaker of Arabic can't speak Standard Arabic. So there is no reason for existing Arabic Wikipedia to be disqualified for this reason, but even so, the Arabic Wikipedia was created prior to the LPP and is therefore unaffected.

The requirement to be a distinct language is to ensure that there are no multiple Wikipedias for a language that is sufficiently communicative at the dialect level equivalent(If this were incomprehensible to native speakers, it would have been recognized as a separate language). In general, these branches are likely for political reasons, which may be on-wiki as well as off-wiki reasons. This permission of Wikipedia jeopardizes NPOV by creating Wikipedia with different views of the same language for that purpose. Even if it has no such purpose, it is likely to be abused as such.

Sotiale

https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail 바이러스가 없습니다.www.avast.com https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail <#m_-3835623023056331121_m_-681473850486263020_m_922395621415868508_m_8888600196279916464_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>

2023년 8월 26일 (토) 오전 3:32, Anass Sedrati sedranas@gmail.com님이 작성:

...

Hello Sotiale and thank you for your answer,

Sorry for my late reply as I was travelling back from Singapore and had also other engagements.

So regarding your argumentation, if you consider zgh not a distinct language "because it is just a standard representation of Berber languages", then we have also to consider standard Arabic (ISO 639:ara) not a distinct language because it is not spoken in any country/region and is "a standard representation of Arabic languages". Of course, there are many more sources and books in standard Arabic due to religious and historical reasons, but it is still a standardized language, and only a written one. This said, it will of course never be considered to close the Arabic Wikipedia because of it. Therefore, it can be really tricky to base the decisions on this argument, although it is understandable that some languages are "bigger" or more established than others. What do you think?

Best regards,

Anass

On Fri, Aug 18, 2023 at 3:08 PM MF-Warburg mfwarburg@googlemail.com wrote:

...

NB: there has also been a discussion at < https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikipedia_Morocca.... I believe there are several requests open for related languages. It would be good to have some clarity to avoid the community being split into multiple incubator test-wikis.

Am Fr., 18. Aug. 2023 um 14:38 Uhr schrieb Sotiale Wiki < sotiale.wm@gmail.com>:

> Thank you for your kind explanation. > > If this can be understood as the relationship between Standard > Arabic (ISO 639:arb) and Arabic (ISO 639:ara), then zgh is not a distinct > language because it is just a standard representation of Berber > languages. This is true even in light of the current LPP, which excludes > different written forms of any language. > > Therefore, it seems that eligibility for this language cannot be > recognized. > > Sotiale > > 2023년 8월 16일 (수) 오후 10:48, Anass Sedrati sedranas@gmail.com님이 작성: > >> Hello, >> >> I am very familiar with this case as I come myself from Morocco and >> speak Berber. The standard Tamazight ( >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Moroccan_Amazigh) is not a >> spoken language, but only a written one. It was created by the official >> Academy of Berber languages in Morocco ( >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Institute_of_Amazigh_Culture) >> in an attempt to standardize the Berber languages, as there are many of >> them spoken in Morocco ( >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berber_languages). >> >> So to answer you, standard Tamazight is exactly like modern >> standard Arabic ( >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_Standard_Arabic). It is a >> standardized language with rules, but not a spoken one (nobody speaks >> standard Arabic as a mother tongue, every Arab country has its own dialect). >> >> This is to explain that even if it not native, Zgh can be treated >> as modern standard Arabic in terms of linguistics. I hope that this gives a >> bit of context, but I am happy to expand on any aspect if you have >> additional questions! >> >> Best regards, >> >> Anass >> >> On Wed, Aug 16, 2023 at 3:00 PM Sotiale Wiki sotiale.wm@gmail.com >> wrote: >> >>> Hi all. >>> >>> I'm not familiar with the Moroccan languages, so I'd love to hear >>> from other colleagues. >>> >>> I'm considering this language project as a potential candidate for >>> approval, but I'm wondering if this is a standardization of other >>> languages, or a distinct language from others? >>> >>> Since this site[1] states that there are no native speakers, I >>> wondered if this was just standardization of other languages(the case that >>> native speakers have a standardized language while using their own >>> languages). >>> >>> [1] https://www.ethnologue.com/language/zgh/ >>> >>> Sotiale >>> >>> >>> https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail 바이러스가 >>> 없습니다.www.avast.com >>> https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail >>> <#m_-3835623023056331121_m_-681473850486263020_m_922395621415868508_m_8888600196279916464_m_3445872535440906073_m_5983961874573513948_m_-52777032840040729_m_-1496450384923849562_m_5794971244151197459_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Langcom mailing list -- langcom@lists.wikimedia.org >>> To unsubscribe send an email to langcom-leave@lists.wikimedia.org >>> >> >> >> -- >> ----------------------------------------------------- >> *Anass SEDRATI* >> *(+46) 70 508 51 07* >> _______________________________________________ >> 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

--

*Anass SEDRATI* *(+46) 70 508 51 07* _______________________________________________ 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

-- mvh Jon Harald Søby _______________________________________________ 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