Etnologue classified Arabic as macrolanguage. not a single language: it's a group of language, form of a collection of several vernacular languages called "arabic"(no mutual intelligibles), and the Standard Arabic (continuer of classic arabic, no vernacular). We are talking about the last one.
it is not comparable to spanish (a vernacular language that all people of hispanic countries understand since they are babies).
And It is comparable to medieval latin because both are not vernacular, but are very useful as culture vehicle. the point is the absurd to insist in Native requirement. the reality is: native condition is not determinant, and not neccesary feature to express culture; the language prestigious is. and that do not mean i oppose native projects, no, i oppose the native requirement.
it isn't acceptable the stubborness of langcom in not replace the "native" requirement for the "Fluent expression" one. result of community consense:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meta_talk:Language_proposal_policy/Community_...
Hoi, SIL both maintains the ISO-639-3 and Ethnologue. In Ethnologue there is no such thing as a macro language, this is specific to the standard. Both in the iSO-639-3 and Ethnologue the word "vernacular" is not used, asserting that all Arabic languages are vernaculars is problematic.
As to stubbornly requiring a "native" requirement, this is something where you will find that the langcom is not in agreement. The langcom works by full consensus, there is disagreement on this. Personally I insist that it is abundantly clear on a meta level that a language is indeed the language that is being considered. This means that what is in essence a dead language that has a modern usage is to be taggedd for exactly this. It is for this same reason that requiring a localisation in such a language is imho a fallacy.
Then again, we are rehashing things that have been said before.
Thanks, GerardM
On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 5:23 PM, Crazy Lover <always_yours.forever@yahoo.com
wrote:
Etnologue classified Arabic as macrolanguage. not a single language: it's a group of language, form of a collection of several vernacular languages called "arabic"(no mutual intelligibles), and the Standard Arabic (continuer of classic arabic, no vernacular). We are talking about the last one.
it is not comparable to spanish (a vernacular language that all people of hispanic countries understand since they are babies).
And It is comparable to medieval latin because both are not vernacular, but are very useful as culture vehicle. the point is the absurd to insist in Native requirement. the reality is: native condition is not determinant, and not neccesary feature to express culture; the language prestigious is. and that do not mean i oppose native projects, no, i oppose the native requirement.
it isn't acceptable the stubborness of langcom in not replace the "native" requirement for the "Fluent expression" one. result of community consense:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meta_talk:Language_proposal_policy/Community_...
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org