Can we, by the way, define more detailed criteria for which artificial languages should be eligible?
Am 08.12.2017 7:34 nachm. schrieb "Steven White" Koala19890@hotmail.com:
This has been out a week with no objections, so I am marking this as "approving" (pending language check).
I guess the logical person to contact on this is the creator of the language, C. George Boeree https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C._George_Boeree, Professor Emeritus at Shippensburg University of Pennsylvania https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shippensburg_University_of_Pennsylvania. (I am told he contributed a small amount to the project, but was not a major contributor.) He has a web page at http://webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/, and his email address is cgboer@ship.edu. Please let me know who is going to handle this.
Steven
Sent from Outlook http://aka.ms/weboutlook
_______________________________________________ Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 10:58 PM, MF-Warburg mfwarburg@googlemail.com wrote:
Can we, by the way, define more detailed criteria for which artificial languages should be eligible?
Agreed. If we count native speakers, Klingon is, AFAIK, immediately after Esperanto.
Hoi, We had Klingon at one time.. Do you really consider revisiting that ? Thanks, GerardM
On 8 December 2017 at 23:22, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 10:58 PM, MF-Warburg mfwarburg@googlemail.com wrote:
Can we, by the way, define more detailed criteria for which artificial languages should be eligible?
Agreed. If we count native speakers, Klingon is, AFAIK, immediately after Esperanto.
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
I've just said that Klingon makes more sense than LFN, as it actually has native speakers.
On Dec 9, 2017 06:55, "Gerard Meijssen" gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, We had Klingon at one time.. Do you really consider revisiting that ? Thanks, GerardM
On 8 December 2017 at 23:22, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 10:58 PM, MF-Warburg mfwarburg@googlemail.com wrote:
Can we, by the way, define more detailed criteria for which artificial languages should be eligible?
Agreed. If we count native speakers, Klingon is, AFAIK, immediately after Esperanto.
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
Hoi, In an alternate universe maybe. Thanks, GerardM
Op za 9 dec. 2017 om 13:24 schreef Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com
I've just said that Klingon makes more sense than LFN, as it actually has native speakers.
On Dec 9, 2017 06:55, "Gerard Meijssen" gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, We had Klingon at one time.. Do you really consider revisiting that ? Thanks, GerardM
On 8 December 2017 at 23:22, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 10:58 PM, MF-Warburg mfwarburg@googlemail.com wrote:
Can we, by the way, define more detailed criteria for which artificial languages should be eligible?
Agreed. If we count native speakers, Klingon is, AFAIK, immediately after Esperanto.
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
I suppose you have strong evidence that LFN has more native speakers than Klingon or you are just an ordinary liar?
On Sat, Dec 9, 2017 at 4:45 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, In an alternate universe maybe. Thanks, GerardM
Op za 9 dec. 2017 om 13:24 schreef Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com
I've just said that Klingon makes more sense than LFN, as it actually has native speakers.
On Dec 9, 2017 06:55, "Gerard Meijssen" gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, We had Klingon at one time.. Do you really consider revisiting that ? Thanks, GerardM
On 8 December 2017 at 23:22, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 10:58 PM, MF-Warburg mfwarburg@googlemail.com wrote:
Can we, by the way, define more detailed criteria for which artificial languages should be eligible?
Agreed. If we count native speakers, Klingon is, AFAIK, immediately after Esperanto.
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
Hoi,' and you have it on good authority that there are native speakers of Klingon? Who are you fooling. At that, you are insulting. Thanks, GerardM
On 9 December 2017 at 17:10, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
I suppose you have strong evidence that LFN has more native speakers than Klingon or you are just an ordinary liar?
On Sat, Dec 9, 2017 at 4:45 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, In an alternate universe maybe. Thanks, GerardM
Op za 9 dec. 2017 om 13:24 schreef Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com
I've just said that Klingon makes more sense than LFN, as it actually
has
native speakers.
On Dec 9, 2017 06:55, "Gerard Meijssen" gerard.meijssen@gmail.com
wrote:
Hoi, We had Klingon at one time.. Do you really consider revisiting that ? Thanks, GerardM
On 8 December 2017 at 23:22, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 10:58 PM, MF-Warburg <mfwarburg@googlemail.com
wrote:
Can we, by the way, define more detailed criteria for which
artificial
languages should be eligible?
Agreed. If we count native speakers, Klingon is, AFAIK, immediately after Esperanto.
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
This [1] sounds like pretty valid and "maybe few" is infinitely larger number than 0. Besides the fact that you told me the same information ~5 years ago.
The insult was intentional.
[1] http://blog.longnow.org/02009/06/01/klingon-elvish-and-esperanto-linguist-ta...
On Sat, Dec 9, 2017 at 5:36 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi,' and you have it on good authority that there are native speakers of Klingon? Who are you fooling. At that, you are insulting. Thanks, GerardM
On 9 December 2017 at 17:10, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
I suppose you have strong evidence that LFN has more native speakers than Klingon or you are just an ordinary liar?
On Sat, Dec 9, 2017 at 4:45 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, In an alternate universe maybe. Thanks, GerardM
Op za 9 dec. 2017 om 13:24 schreef Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com
I've just said that Klingon makes more sense than LFN, as it actually has native speakers.
On Dec 9, 2017 06:55, "Gerard Meijssen" gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, We had Klingon at one time.. Do you really consider revisiting that ? Thanks, GerardM
On 8 December 2017 at 23:22, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 10:58 PM, MF-Warburg mfwarburg@googlemail.com wrote: > Can we, by the way, define more detailed criteria for which > artificial > languages should be eligible?
Agreed. If we count native speakers, Klingon is, AFAIK, immediately after Esperanto.
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
I'm a speaker of Klingon and co-founder of the former Klingon Wikipedia, which got moved to Wikia. There are no native speakers of Klingon. There used to be one, the son of D'Armond Spears, but he ceased to speak the language when he was about 4 years old. It's a well-known story. So unless there's a fluent speaker who manages to keep it completely secret that they're speaking Klingon with their child, unbeknownst to the speakers' community, then there is no other native speaker of Klingon at the moment. With about 20 to 30 fluent speakers and maybe around 200 (my guess) who can communicate in the language well enough, it is at least a possibility.
- André
2017-12-09 17:46 GMT+01:00 Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com:
This [1] sounds like pretty valid and "maybe few" is infinitely larger number than 0. Besides the fact that you told me the same information ~5 years ago.
The insult was intentional.
[1] http://blog.longnow.org/02009/06/01/klingon-elvish-and- esperanto-linguist-takes-a-serious-look-at-invented-languages/
On Sat, Dec 9, 2017 at 5:36 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi,' and you have it on good authority that there are native speakers of
Klingon?
Who are you fooling. At that, you are insulting. Thanks, GerardM
On 9 December 2017 at 17:10, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
I suppose you have strong evidence that LFN has more native speakers than Klingon or you are just an ordinary liar?
On Sat, Dec 9, 2017 at 4:45 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, In an alternate universe maybe. Thanks, GerardM
Op za 9 dec. 2017 om 13:24 schreef Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com
I've just said that Klingon makes more sense than LFN, as it actually has native speakers.
On Dec 9, 2017 06:55, "Gerard Meijssen" gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, We had Klingon at one time.. Do you really consider revisiting that
?
Thanks, GerardM
On 8 December 2017 at 23:22, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com
wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 10:58 PM, MF-Warburg > mfwarburg@googlemail.com > wrote: > > Can we, by the way, define more detailed criteria for which > > artificial > > languages should be eligible? > > Agreed. If we count native speakers, Klingon is, AFAIK, immediately > after Esperanto. > > _______________________________________________ > Langcom mailing list > Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
Hoi, I expect an apology. Thanks, GerardM
On 9 December 2017 at 17:46, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
This [1] sounds like pretty valid and "maybe few" is infinitely larger number than 0. Besides the fact that you told me the same information ~5 years ago.
The insult was intentional.
[1] http://blog.longnow.org/02009/06/01/klingon-elvish-and- esperanto-linguist-takes-a-serious-look-at-invented-languages/
On Sat, Dec 9, 2017 at 5:36 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi,' and you have it on good authority that there are native speakers of
Klingon?
Who are you fooling. At that, you are insulting. Thanks, GerardM
On 9 December 2017 at 17:10, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
I suppose you have strong evidence that LFN has more native speakers than Klingon or you are just an ordinary liar?
On Sat, Dec 9, 2017 at 4:45 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, In an alternate universe maybe. Thanks, GerardM
Op za 9 dec. 2017 om 13:24 schreef Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com
I've just said that Klingon makes more sense than LFN, as it actually has native speakers.
On Dec 9, 2017 06:55, "Gerard Meijssen" gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, We had Klingon at one time.. Do you really consider revisiting that
?
Thanks, GerardM
On 8 December 2017 at 23:22, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com
wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 10:58 PM, MF-Warburg > mfwarburg@googlemail.com > wrote: > > Can we, by the way, define more detailed criteria for which > > artificial > > languages should be eligible? > > Agreed. If we count native speakers, Klingon is, AFAIK, immediately > after Esperanto. > > _______________________________________________ > Langcom mailing list > Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
On Sat, Dec 9, 2017 at 7:10 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
I expect an apology.
I expect peace in world.
Can we please stay on the topic?
It seems important to me to have some sort of rule which ensures consistency wrt artificial languages. Otherwise it will give reason to all sorts of unnecessary complaints.
Am 09.12.2017 7:21 nachm. schrieb "Milos Rancic" millosh@gmail.com:
On Sat, Dec 9, 2017 at 7:10 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
I expect an apology.
I expect peace in world.
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
On Sat, Dec 9, 2017 at 8:23 PM, MF-Warburg mfwarburg@googlemail.com wrote:
It seems important to me to have some sort of rule which ensures consistency wrt artificial languages. Otherwise it will give reason to all sorts of unnecessary complaints.
I suppose that we will have in the near future a number of well elaborated constructed languages, no matter if their intention would be fun or taking role as a language for more useful, more likely particular than general purpose. (For example, Slovio is interesting, as it requires writers educated in Slovio, but non-educated native Slavic speakers to read it; but it has copyright issues.)
Counting that there are no copyright and similar issues, I would define it approximately in the following way: To be considered as eligible, a constructed language has to have:
1) a clear communication purpose (i.e. the intention of creation the language is not to make an art piece more elaborated, but to be used as a mean for communication; Klingon, Quenya and Dothraki would pass just with the native speakers OR with the post factum change of the intention and creation of relevant support for that language, which makes them a "regular" constructed language; I could imagine Klingon could pass based on the last rule);
2) full basic dictionary;
3) a method for creative usage (i.e. creating the new words; somebody has to be able to create an article about quantum mechanics in that language, no matter if that language doesn't have those words initially); if it doesn't allow users to create the new words, it has to have a body which would promptly deal with the needs to write an encyclopedia;
4) (add your requirement here; I suppose Michael, Jan and Andre could help here)
5) Additionally, that should be verified by at least two linguists chosen by LangCom (this is a general linguistic task; unlike in the case of verifying the content, a linguist verifying the *language* doesn't need to speak the language).
Hoi, So we need words like table in that language. Thanks, GerardM
On 9 December 2017 at 21:17, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Dec 9, 2017 at 8:23 PM, MF-Warburg mfwarburg@googlemail.com wrote:
It seems important to me to have some sort of rule which ensures
consistency
wrt artificial languages. Otherwise it will give reason to all sorts of unnecessary complaints.
I suppose that we will have in the near future a number of well elaborated constructed languages, no matter if their intention would be fun or taking role as a language for more useful, more likely particular than general purpose. (For example, Slovio is interesting, as it requires writers educated in Slovio, but non-educated native Slavic speakers to read it; but it has copyright issues.)
Counting that there are no copyright and similar issues, I would define it approximately in the following way: To be considered as eligible, a constructed language has to have:
- a clear communication purpose (i.e. the intention of creation the
language is not to make an art piece more elaborated, but to be used as a mean for communication; Klingon, Quenya and Dothraki would pass just with the native speakers OR with the post factum change of the intention and creation of relevant support for that language, which makes them a "regular" constructed language; I could imagine Klingon could pass based on the last rule);
full basic dictionary;
a method for creative usage (i.e. creating the new words; somebody
has to be able to create an article about quantum mechanics in that language, no matter if that language doesn't have those words initially); if it doesn't allow users to create the new words, it has to have a body which would promptly deal with the needs to write an encyclopedia;
- (add your requirement here; I suppose Michael, Jan and Andre could help
here)
- Additionally, that should be verified by at least two linguists
chosen by LangCom (this is a general linguistic task; unlike in the case of verifying the content, a linguist verifying the *language* doesn't need to speak the language).
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
2017-12-09 21:25 GMT+01:00 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com:
Hoi, So we need words like table in that language. Thanks, GerardM
Just on this point, the klingon word for "table" is raS (see 'Klingon for the Galactic Traveler', 1996, Okrand, passim)
Cdlt, ~nicolas
On Sat, Dec 9, 2017 at 9:25 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
So we need words like table in that language.
One has to have a specifically closed mind to not realize that table in Klingon could be "table", as well.
Or tafel or tisch or tryezë or ميز and that is exactly why all these words are not to be used in Klingon. The same is true for table actually. Thanks, GerardM
On 9 December 2017 at 21:42, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Dec 9, 2017 at 9:25 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
So we need words like table in that language.
One has to have a specifically closed mind to not realize that table in Klingon could be "table", as well.
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
On Sat, Dec 9, 2017 at 10:51 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Or tafel or tisch or tryezë or ميز and that is exactly why all these words are not to be used in Klingon. The same is true for table actually.
Your incompetence is astonishing! Please, tell that to the speakers of, for example, Irish or Welsh.
Miloš. Klingon vocabulary is created by ONE PERSON and ONE PERSON ONLY, and unless he makes a word for “table”. there isn’t one.
On 9 Dec 2017, at 21:59, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Dec 9, 2017 at 10:51 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Or tafel or tisch or tryezë or ميز and that is exactly why all these words are not to be used in Klingon. The same is true for table actually.
Your incompetence is astonishing! Please, tell that to the speakers of, for example, Irish or Welsh.
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
Actually, Slovio is not a good example. That project has been dead for almost seven years now, and even before that, it never had more than about one dozen of people who could use it to some degree.
As for Interslavic, perhaps one the long term it would be possible, but at present I don't think the language would be ready for it. And now that I think of this, here comes my fourth requirement: d) The language should be STABLE.
If a language is in full development, the odds are that at some point the author(s) decide to make improvements in vocabulary, grammar and/or orthography, which would immediately invalidate all previously written material. That's something we can't have. Even the differences between two versions of Novial have been a bit of a problem on the Novial Wikipedia. Volapük is another example of a language that exists in two versions.
These are problems that can and will be fixed with time. But the problem of a small vocabulary cannot. In the case of Klingon, there is only one person who is entitled to coin new words, which happens scarcely. At present, the dictionary contains ca. 3000 words, in other words, not even a fifth of what would be needed for the purposes of an encyclopedia. In the case of Quenya, the situation is even more complicated. AFAIK Tolkien himself left us ca. 2500 words (Sindarin even less). There is a community of people who coin new words, but the non-canonical words are not recognised by everybody. All in all, creating a Wikipedia project for such a language would be asking for trouble.
Cheers, Jan
2017-12-09 21:17 GMT+01:00 Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com:
On Sat, Dec 9, 2017 at 8:23 PM, MF-Warburg mfwarburg@googlemail.com wrote:
It seems important to me to have some sort of rule which ensures
consistency
wrt artificial languages. Otherwise it will give reason to all sorts of unnecessary complaints.
I suppose that we will have in the near future a number of well elaborated constructed languages, no matter if their intention would be fun or taking role as a language for more useful, more likely particular than general purpose. (For example, Slovio is interesting, as it requires writers educated in Slovio, but non-educated native Slavic speakers to read it; but it has copyright issues.)
Counting that there are no copyright and similar issues, I would define it approximately in the following way: To be considered as eligible, a constructed language has to have:
- a clear communication purpose (i.e. the intention of creation the
language is not to make an art piece more elaborated, but to be used as a mean for communication; Klingon, Quenya and Dothraki would pass just with the native speakers OR with the post factum change of the intention and creation of relevant support for that language, which makes them a "regular" constructed language; I could imagine Klingon could pass based on the last rule);
full basic dictionary;
a method for creative usage (i.e. creating the new words; somebody
has to be able to create an article about quantum mechanics in that language, no matter if that language doesn't have those words initially); if it doesn't allow users to create the new words, it has to have a body which would promptly deal with the needs to write an encyclopedia;
- (add your requirement here; I suppose Michael, Jan and Andre could help
here)
- Additionally, that should be verified by at least two linguists
chosen by LangCom (this is a general linguistic task; unlike in the case of verifying the content, a linguist verifying the *language* doesn't need to speak the language).
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
Grow up, both of you. This is a public list.
On 9 Dec 2017, at 18:20, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Dec 9, 2017 at 7:10 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
I expect an apology.
I expect peace in world.
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
Dear people, neither Klingon nor LFN have any native speakers. Okay, that's not entirely true. There has been a case of a certain D'Armond Speers who tried to raise his son in Klingon (thus making him the one and only native speaker), but it was not a success because the language lacked elementary words like "table". The only artificial language that has ever had more than one native speaker is Esperanto (not counting semi-artificial reconstructions like Rumantsch Grischun, Modern Hebrew etc.).
And this is precisely where we are getting to the issue brought in by MF-Warburg: "Can we, by the way, define more detailed criteria for which artificial languages should be eligible?"
My point of view is that there are two main criteria here: a) Is the language developed enough to make such a project possible at all? b) Is the community of people willing to work on the project large enough to make it viable?
One might also add as a third criterion: c) Is the language intended/suitable for human communication at all?
Klingon has a large fan base, but it fails the criteria a en c. The same goes also for proposed projects in Tolkien's Quenya and Sindarin.
Another interesting case in point is Toki Pona, which used to have a Wikipedia in the past, but it was deleted, apparently because it was practically empty. The language seems to be quite popular, but the community clearly was too small to make it a success. Besides, I'm not sure how the idea of a language with only ±120 words can really work well for an encyclopedia.
But when a language fulfills all three criteria, I cannot see why a project shouldn't be given a chance. The Wikipedias in Esperanto, Interlingua and Ido are doing reasonably well. Those in Volapük and Occidental/Interlingue to some degree as well. The projects in Lojban and Novial are practically dead.
Cheers, Jan
2017-12-09 17:10 GMT+01:00 Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com:
I suppose you have strong evidence that LFN has more native speakers than Klingon or you are just an ordinary liar?
On Sat, Dec 9, 2017 at 4:45 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, In an alternate universe maybe. Thanks, GerardM
Op za 9 dec. 2017 om 13:24 schreef Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com
I've just said that Klingon makes more sense than LFN, as it actually
has
native speakers.
On Dec 9, 2017 06:55, "Gerard Meijssen" gerard.meijssen@gmail.com
wrote:
Hoi, We had Klingon at one time.. Do you really consider revisiting that ? Thanks, GerardM
On 8 December 2017 at 23:22, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 10:58 PM, MF-Warburg <mfwarburg@googlemail.com
wrote:
Can we, by the way, define more detailed criteria for which
artificial
languages should be eligible?
Agreed. If we count native speakers, Klingon is, AFAIK, immediately after Esperanto.
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
On 9 Dec 2017, at 16:10, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
I suppose you have strong evidence that LFN has more native speakers than Klingon or you are just an ordinary liar?
Miloš, be polite.
M
On 9 Dec 2017, at 12:24, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
I've just said that Klingon makes more sense than LFN, as it actually has native speakers.
That’s not really true. Not like Esperanto has.
M
On 9 Dec 2017, at 05:54, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, We had Klingon at one time.. Do you really consider revisiting that ?
Why not? I got it its ISO 639 code.
M