On https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Language_proposal_policy as user suggested to use the term "constructed language" rather than "artificial language" in the policy. Seems decent enough to me. Any other thoughts?
SIL as the Language Coding Agency for ISO 639-3 (as well as the standard itself) uses "Constructed" thus we should follow the standard terminology and use that as well.
Apart from following the standard terminology being a good habit, it also makes simplier to cooperate with various databases which follow this terminology (no transformations/translations of terms needed).
Kind regards
Danny B.
---------- Původní e-mail ---------- Od: MF-Warburg mfwarburg@googlemail.com Komu: Wikimedia Foundation Language Committee langcom@lists.wikimedia.org Datum: 4. 2. 2025 15:34:52 Předmět: [Langcom] "Artificial" vs "constructed" language " On https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Language_proposal_policy (https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Language_proposal_policy) as user suggested to use the term "constructed language" rather than "artificial language" in the policy. Seems decent enough to me. Any other thoughts?
_______________________________________________ Langcom mailing list -- langcom@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe send an email to langcom-leave@lists.wikimedia.org "
I agree, "constructed" is more precise and neutral in general, and this term's usage on the ISO 639 website is another reason to prefer it.
(And, even though it's not very important, I will mention that I don't agree with the statement on that talk page: 'A more precise term for Esperanto, Ido, Interlingua, Interlingue, Lingua Franca Nova, Novial and Interslavic is "planned language".' Language *planning* can be done with all languages, not only constructed ones. Modern Turkish, Hebrew, Mandarin, and many other languages that are definitely not constructed were influenced by language planning activities.)
-- Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי http://aharoni.wordpress.com “We're living in pieces, I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore
בתאריך יום ג׳, 4 בפבר׳ 2025 ב-17:21 מאת Danny B. < Wikipedia.Danny.B@email.cz>:
SIL as the Language Coding Agency for ISO 639-3 (as well as the standard itself) uses "Constructed" thus we should follow the standard terminology and use that as well.
Apart from following the standard terminology being a good habit, it also makes simplier to cooperate with various databases which follow this terminology (no transformations/translations of terms needed).
Kind regards
Danny B.
---------- Původní e-mail ---------- Od: MF-Warburg mfwarburg@googlemail.com Komu: Wikimedia Foundation Language Committee <langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
Datum: 4. 2. 2025 15:34:52 Předmět: [Langcom] "Artificial" vs "constructed" language
On https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Language_proposal_policy as user suggested to use the term "constructed language" rather than "artificial language" in the policy. Seems decent enough to me. Any other thoughts? _______________________________________________ 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
If I may...
I agree with the proposal to substitute "artificial" with "constructed", but I'd like to point out that terminology in this field is not fully standardized. For example, some authors use the term "constructed language" only for languages created for artistic or private purposes. Besides, languages tend to handle the issue differently. In German, for example, international auxiliary languages are generally called "Plansprachen". Most authors, including myself, treat "constructed language" and "artificial language" as synonyms.
Also, the common belief that there is some kind of binary dichotomy between natural and constructed languages is misplaced. Ultimately, every language is, to some degree, the result of deliberate human intervention. In other words, every language can be placed somewhere on a scale of artificiality, and it is not like a thick red line can be drawn between both extremes. As a matter of fact, some languages usually considered natural (especially reinvented languages and certain standardization proposals) can as easily be considered constructed; some of them even have a single author and a year of creation. Modern Hebrew is a good example of a language that really belongs to the grey area of languages that are neither fully natural nor fully artificial.
Best regards, Jan van Steenbergen
As there has been no opposition to this proposal in a month, I am going to implement it.
Am Do., 6. Feb. 2025 um 10:46 Uhr schrieb Jan van Steenbergen < ijzeren.jan@gmail.com>:
If I may...
I agree with the proposal to substitute "artificial" with "constructed", but I'd like to point out that terminology in this field is not fully standardized. For example, some authors use the term "constructed language" only for languages created for artistic or private purposes. Besides, languages tend to handle the issue differently. In German, for example, international auxiliary languages are generally called "Plansprachen". Most authors, including myself, treat "constructed language" and "artificial language" as synonyms.
Also, the common belief that there is some kind of binary dichotomy between natural and constructed languages is misplaced. Ultimately, every language is, to some degree, the result of deliberate human intervention. In other words, every language can be placed somewhere on a scale of artificiality, and it is not like a thick red line can be drawn between both extremes. As a matter of fact, some languages usually considered natural (especially reinvented languages and certain standardization proposals) can as easily be considered constructed; some of them even have a single author and a year of creation. Modern Hebrew is a good example of a language that really belongs to the grey area of languages that are neither fully natural nor fully artificial.
Best regards, Jan van Steenbergen _______________________________________________ Langcom mailing list -- langcom@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe send an email to langcom-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
The agency that assigns ISO codes already has a standardized terminology, which is '*constructed language.'. *I suggest going with what already exists to avoid miscommunication in the future.
--- Tochi Precious *Wikipedian in Residence at Moleskine Foundation* *German/English, Igbo/English, French/English Translator| Editor|* *Alumnus, Cherie Blair Foundation Mentorship Program* *Zimba Women Mentor, Uganda* *Ambassador, The Next Economy Nigeria*
*Alles ist möglich*
On Tue, Feb 4, 2025 at 4:34 PM MF-Warburg mfwarburg@googlemail.com wrote:
On https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Language_proposal_policy as user suggested to use the term "constructed language" rather than "artificial language" in the policy. Seems decent enough to me. Any other thoughts? _______________________________________________ Langcom mailing list -- langcom@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe send an email to langcom-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Agreed, sounds like a reasonable request, and the points about ISO's terminology are of course sound.
ons. 5. feb. 2025, 14:09 skrev Tochi Precious tochiprecious2@gmail.com:
The agency that assigns ISO codes already has a standardized terminology, which is '*constructed language.'. *I suggest going with what already exists to avoid miscommunication in the future.
Tochi Precious *Wikipedian in Residence at Moleskine Foundation* *German/English, Igbo/English, French/English Translator| Editor|* *Alumnus, Cherie Blair Foundation Mentorship Program* *Zimba Women Mentor, Uganda* *Ambassador, The Next Economy Nigeria*
*Alles ist möglich*
On Tue, Feb 4, 2025 at 4:34 PM MF-Warburg mfwarburg@googlemail.com wrote:
On https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Language_proposal_policy as user suggested to use the term "constructed language" rather than "artificial language" in the policy. Seems decent enough to me. Any other thoughts? _______________________________________________ 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