I think that in the case of ancient languages, which no longer have native speakers, we should have the following two criteria additionally to the criterion of an active test project: * New literature is still being produced and published in the proposed language (whether translated or original) * The proposed language is taught in a number of institutions like schools or universities. Gerard's main argument against ancient languages has been the following: "When you insist on reviving a language, it is not the language it used to be." In the case of an ancient language that is still used outside of Wikipedia for new pieces of literature, one can say that as a written language it is still "living" (though as a spoken language it can be called "dead"). Inevitably the language is still evolving by accepting new words or phrases (otherwise new pieces of literature wouldn't really be possible). So in that case, Gerard's argument doesn't apply. Ancient Greek (which started this discussion) is still used for publishing new works, for example the translation of Harry Potter into Ancient Greek. If the language subcomittee now rejects the proposal for Ancient Greek, this is clearly based on a non-neutral point of view. The proposal is not trying to "revive" Ancient Greek - written Ancient Greek probably has never been dead, or if yes, it has already been successfully revived outside of Wikipedia. Once the two criteria mentioned above are added for the case of ancient languages, the word "native", which is clearly out of place there, can be dropped from the language proposal policy. I hope that my arguments will be considered by the language subcommittee. Marcos -- GMX startet ShortView.de. Hier findest Du Leute mit Deinen Interessen! Jetzt dabei sein: http://www.shortview.de/?mc=sv_ext_mf@gmx