On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 1:04 AM, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, well then, what does make a language alive? An Ethnologue or ISO classification as a living language? Or is this determined based on some set of objective criteria we don't know about? Is it only the question of native speakers, or is there something else?
Also, what if there are conflicting sources? For example some sources state that there are native speakers of Coptic; others state that it is completely dead since the 18th century.
We have to look at the literature. To me, it shouldn't matter whether it's the Coptic Church that's writing the new literature, or someone else notable (I'm not actually sure if the Coptic Church is doing this, but let's assume for the sake of argument). As long as there is a notable -contemporary- literature, vocabulary problems will be minimal.
Fact is, many native languages also tend to only be written in certain genres, and the fact that literature may tend to be concentrated in certain genres shouldn't be held against a written language.
Thanks, Pharos
On 01/04/2008, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, When there is no modern vocabulary and this is objectively determined by modern literature there is no living language at all. Also one hobbyist does not make a language alive. Thanks, GerardM
On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 6:50 AM, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
The fact that the Coptic church may or may not issue their documents in Coptic is not enough alone to state that this is a "dead language".
We must look at all facets of modern use (and lack thereof), rather than just the issuance of new documents by a particular church in a specific language.
Mark
On 01/04/2008, Aphaia aphaia@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 5:04 AM, Pharos pharosofalexandria@gmail.com
wrote:
On Sat, Mar 29, 2008 at 5:33 PM, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com
wrote:
For Latin, it is obvious. The latest Roman Missal was published in 2002. If you can argue it is not so much different from the second latest one, it had been published in 1962. Reflecting the so-called 2nd Vatican Counsil and its reformation, 1962 version, or Novus Ordo is very known of its differences from the earlier versions. Or we can refer to CCC or several motu proprios which the Vatican has issued.
On the other hand, Coptic Church doesn't seem to be enthusiastic to issue their documents in Coptic. As for the Orthodox, I don't know any church in the Slavic tradition using Church Slavic as their document language, while still today it is the language of liturgy and the Scrupture and many prayers, and Churches in Greek tradition don't use Attic dialect as far as I know.
There is a good reason Latin learners can be allowed to entertain their linguistic ability on this project, I think. Anyway, even in a narrow region, it is still used and viable to carry ideas.
Yes, I think the exact rule we should propose is: Does this language have a contemporary literature? Are new articles or books still be written in it?
And is the contemporary literature respected by -scholars- of the "historical" language (i.e. not something merely pursued by Sumerian hobbyists)?
Because if there is a contemporary literature, then the language is not truly extinct in the written form.
When we "provide the sum of human knowledge to every human being",
we
must recognize the diversity of human expression, and that a -full- accounting of the vehicles of intellectual discourse must include
all
languages that have contemporary literatures, whether they havve native speakers or not.
Pharos
On 29/03/2008, Jesse Martin (Pathoschild) pathoschild@gmail.com
wrote:
> Hello, > > The language subcommittee only allows languages that have a
living
> native community (except Wikisource, due to its archivist
nature).
> This is based on an interpretation of the Wikimedia Foundation
mission
> to "provide the sum of human knowledge to every human being".
Thus,
> the overriding purpose of allowing a wiki in a new language is
to make
> it accessible to more human beings. If a language has no
native users,
> allowing a wiki in that language does not fit our mission
because it
> does not make that project accessible to more human beings.
Instead, a
> wiki in their native languages should be requested if it
doesn't
> already exist. > > Typically, the users requesting a wiki in an extinct language
don't
> want to provide educational material to more people at all,
but only
> want to promote or revive the language. While these are noble
goals,
> they are not those of the Wikimedia Foundation, so that a wiki
should
> not be created simply to fulfill them. > > But that is my opinion. What do you think; should wikis be
allowed in
> every extinct language? > > > -- > Yours cordially, > Jesse Plamondon-Willard (Pathoschild) > > _______________________________________________ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l