Sanskrit can do one better, they have native speakers (somebody in
another thread just said they didn't, not true!)
Mark
2008/9/4 Ziko van Dijk <zvandijk(a)googlemail.com>om>:
There is a major difference between Latin and other
"ancient
languages": A neo Latin movement, Latinitas Viva, is actually using
Latin as a modern language. They have conventicula (meetings), Grex
latine loquentium (an internet forum) and modern literature and
dictionaries. I don't see that in the case of, for example, ancient
Greek.
All Wikipedias in ancient languages I know - with the exception of
Latin - are more or less dead.
For ancient languages usually a Wikisource project is more suitable,
though often the ancient forms of modern languages can be integrated
into an existing Wikisource - like German Wikisource embraces also
texts in ancient forms of German.
Kind regards
Ziko
2008/9/4 Aphaia <aphaia(a)gmail.com>om>:
I remember the recent discussion about
communication with a Polish
lady ... that is quite similar for me as Japanese with Classical
Chinese.
Since we at Japan consider it part of our literature heritage, we
spare hours to learn it for years compulsory. I can read somehow
Classical Chinese, even better than modern one, besides I am not
familiar much with simplified characters and my skills in writing was
not as super as Meiji era people who could freely compose poems and
prose in Classical Chinese. And I sometimes used this knowledge to
communicate with Chinese whose language is of curse modern one (by
writing down of course).
I am not familiar with the current zh-classic community, but if it is
live, we have no reason to shut it down as well as we now keep Latin
Wikipedia alive.
On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 5:59 PM, Ting Chen <wing.philopp(a)gmx.de> wrote:
Tim Starling wrote:
Ting Chen wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> since its creation I wondered why this happend. Why is there a classical
> chinese Wikipedia? This language has no native speakers and is not used
> by any relitious or official institution as official language.
>
Because at the time it was created, we had not yet given GerardM and his
team of rules lawyers the power to decide all wiki creation issues. There
was a sentiment that we as a community should make our own decisions on
language issues, rather than to delegate it to some standards body who
might not have similar interests at heart. And some people held the
opinion that while language study and preservation is not our core
mission, it'd be nice if it happened anyway, especially if there is no
significant cost to the organisation.
-- Tim Starling
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
I totally agree with you on the issue of language conservation. Actually
I had even thought about the possibility to use our wiki to do such
things. I had read quite some articles for example on Scientific
American about the problems of language conservation that the
researchers are facing. And I think that wiki can be a technical way for
them.
But the classic chinese is another case. Classic chinese is a dead
language, and to write about the modern Olympic games with such a
language is simply original research. It has nothing to do with language
conservation.
Ting
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
--
KIZU Naoko
http://d.hatena.ne.jp/Britty (in Japanese)
Quote of the Day (English):
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/WQ:QOTD
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
--
Ziko van Dijk
NL-Silvolde
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l