Re: [Foundation-l] Ancient Greek reconstructed an analysis of a proposal for a new Wikipedia

On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 8:38 AM, Mark Williamson <node.ue(a)gmail.com> wrote: You've hit the nail on the head right there with your last statement, and it describes quite a few people on this list, I'm afraid. Gerard, your passion for wanting to do this correctly is admirable, I cannot deny that. However, at times you--and many others, on both sides of the debate--work yourselves into a posisition where you only seem to see "your" solution as "the" solution. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it can cause discussions to be frustrating at times. And to everyone, please remember that it's OK to be wrong! It's not a battle to be won, lives aren't lost because people disagree with you. I think if we all remember this a little more often and are willing to say "You're right, we should do it your way instead of mine," we can be a little more productive. And nicer. Likewise. I would like to see the same information before I can accept that this is a realistic concern. Always, Chad On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 8:38 AM, Mark Williamson <node.ue(a)gmail.com> wrote: > There are two stumbling blocks for grc.wp in particular: > > - The requirement of native speakers. > - Gerard's unilateral and so far apparently unsupported and unpopular > view that people will make new words up out of thin air and that this > will make the language they are writing from an historical language > into a conlang. > > Now, the second problem has been discussed over and over. Gerard said > at the beginning of this thread: "Many people maintain their positions > > and do not for whatever reason consider the arguments of others." I > can't help but wonder who he is referring to here? Is he referring to > himself? Or does he consider that unless people all agree with him, > they have not "considered" his argument? > > > 1) Proper names do not count. Although they may not be in the original > corpus, this is irrelevant as any language, historical or modern, can > rapidly assimilate proper names from other languages. Thus, "Britney > Spears" is not a neologism, but a made-up word to mean "computer" is. > Most proper nouns are the same in all languages with exceptions only > for certain toponyms (even in the case of toponyms, many are > universals or close to it). > 2) A word, present in the historical corpus, that means "calculating > machine" used to mean "computer" in modern texts is not a neologism. > Neither is a descriptive phrase of the type used in Navajo (which is a > living language). > > With those two restrictions in mind, I challenge anyone to find a > neologism in use in the grc test wiki, or the Gothic Wikipedia. I am > not saying they do not exist, but I think it is ridiculous that we are > arguing about something that is said to exist without even having > proof that it does. > > Mark > > > > On 17/04/2008, Ziko van Dijk <zvandijk(a)googlemail.com> wrote: > > Dear GerardM, > > Thank you for your explanations; it is sometimes difficult to me following > > the discussions, a full history of the subject would be useful to me. > > So, if I understand correctly, if nowadays someone would propose WPs in > > Esperanto or Latin or Anglo-Saxon, they would be rejected, because they are > > "constructed" (interlinguistics say: planned) languages or reconstructed. > > And they do not have native speakers, or just a small percentage of them. > > When judging the vitality of a language, one can make a list of criteria as > > done by Detlev Blanke: Internationale Plansprachen, Bln. 1985 (I don't > > remember by heart the exact list): > > - publications > > - conventions > > - codification by dictionaries, grammars > > - sociological or political diversification of the language community > > - family language > > According to that, Blanke divides into: > > - Planned languages: a full language, in fact only Esperanto > > - Semi-Planned languages (Semiplansprachen): only some achievements, today > > only Interlingua and Ido, in history also Volapük and Occidental-Interlingue > > - Projects of planned languages: a very faint existence if at all: all the > > others (more than 1000 projects), including Novial, Lojban > > > > Following Heinz Kloss (Die Entwicklung neuerer germanischer Kultursprachen, > > 1978), a small language does not cover all fields of a big language. It will > > make it possible to speak on a level of low education about 1) matters close > > to the language community (language and culture, history of the region, > > maybe a craft common in the region), 2) cultural subjects of a larger range, > > like general politics, philosophy, 3) subjects of science and technology. > > On a level of higher education the small language works only on the subjects > > 1) and 2). > > On a scientific level the small language works only on subject 1). > > > > From this one could draw conclusions whether to accept a language edition of > > Wikipedia, like: a planned language should be a Semiplansprache at least; an > > ethnic language should cover the subjects as described by Kloss. > > One criterion useful especially with regard to Wikipedia might be: Is there > > a vocabulary about computer and internet matters? Would it be a major > > difficulty to the language community to translate the MediaWiki? This > > criterion would cause no problem to Latin and certainly not Esperanto, but > > would ban very recent projects of planned languages and regional idioms who > > merely are dialects or local varieties of the standard language. > > > > Ziko > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - The language must have an ISO-639-3 code > > > - We need full WMF localisation from the start > > > - The language must be sufficiently expressive for writing a modern > > > encyclopaedia > > > - The Incubator project must have sufficiently large articles that > > > demonstrate both the language and its ability to write about a wide > > > range of > > > topics > > > - A sufficiently large group of editors must be part of the Incubator > > > project > > > > > > Thanks, > > > GerardM > > > _______________________________________________ > > > foundation-l mailing list > > > foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Ziko van Dijk > > Roomberg 30 > > NL-7064 BN Silvolde > > > > _______________________________________________ > > foundation-l mailing list > > foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > > > > _______________________________________________ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l >