Hi Servien,
> The reason why I don't post is because that Wiki doesn't "support" my
> dialect... You are very wrong in saying (at least I think so) that in
> Germany are the most "important" dialects of Low Saxon... on the Nds
> Wiki you just ignore those Dutch dialects with about 1.8 million
> speakers...
That is a problem that several minority languages share all over the world.
Due to the lack of a common written language, the language has fragmented
into regional dialects long ago.
> The reason why Dutch speakers don't contribute is because
> the writing system is completely incomprehensible!
We are talking about a wikipedia, so I would like to remind you of the NPOV
policy: it is completely incomprehensible to *them*. It is perfectly readable
for people from this side of the border.
> I think you look a
> bit narrow minded at this subject... the guy who wrote the book was
> most likely German (at least I presume!) and he did not invent the
> spelling for international use, just as in Holland we didn't invent
> the spelling for international use.
In fact it was designed that way. The idea was to make it easy for people with
a High-German background to recognize the words as much as possible.
Therefore e.g. special characters like a with the little o above were not
used.
> If you want to use it for a
> international purpose than you have to adapt the writing system (as
> you mentioned it's spoking in every continent except the Antarctic).
Unfortunately there is no writing system for Low Saxon that is universally
accepted. There is one on this side of the border that you do not understand,
one on your side of the border that we do not understand. Plus a proposal for
a common spelling by R.F. Hahn that might be interesting, but unfortunately
it is incomprehensible on both sides of the border. So which way do you want
to go?
> If I post on Nds, they complain that they don't understand the writing
> and change it to German-based spelling... I'm not German so why would
> I have my messages in German-based spelling?!
Wikipedia articles tend to be written in a collaborate manner. Someone starts
a page, someone else adds something. Yet someone else corrects something etc.
Unfortunately your spelling and our spelling are mutually exclusive. And
frankly, I do not want to have an article that changes orthography each time
the paragraph changes. This might work for Portuguese and Brazilian
Portuguese, but not for writing systems that are way apart.
>
> "Johannes Sass" didn't invent a very good orthography to my opinion,
> he should have a least looked at both major-LS speaking countries and
> made a compromise of both writing systems, or better yet look at the
> Old LS writing system when it used to be a official language in 1500!
Whether or not it was a good orthography is not for us but for history to
decide. I think we are not the ones to fix it. Over time the Sass orthography
has gained more and more popularity in Germany. And we need such a unity to
protect what is left of Low Saxon in Germany, which oftentimes is very
little. For me wikipedia (and KDE op Platt) are a means to spread knowledge
about Plattdüütsch. My goal is to create a Low Saxon wikipedia that people
with little to none Low Saxon background can use to relearn an almost
forgotten language. Besides: that is precicely the reason why I am very much
opposed to any linguistic experiments like the allgemeyne schrievwies by
Hahn. We came to the same conclusion for KDE op Platt. Again: the Sass-based
spelling is a common ground on this side of the border.
> If Plattdüütsch is the name for the dialects in Germany then why is it
> called that, you're not the only LS speakers in the world as mentioned
> almost every continent! Why not make the ISO code PT than?
1) the common name for Low Saxon on German is not "Nedersaksisch", but
"Plattdüütsch". If you ask people about Plattdüütsch, they know what you are
talking about. If you ask them about Niedersächsisch, they won't understand
what language you are talking about. Please have a look at
http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nedersaksisch:
"Het begrip
Het begrip "Nedersaksisch" werd tot in de jaren '90 van de 20e eeuw alleen
door historisch taalkundigen gehanteerd. Sprekers van de Nedersaksische
variëteiten refereerden aan hun dialect met de naam van een plaats of streek
(Achterhoeks, Drents, Veluws, Elspeets enz.), of met de aanduiding Plat (ook
Plat, Platduits). Onder invloed van diverse streektaalbewegingen heeft de
politiek het begrip overgenomen en uiteindelijk als streektaal erkend. Een
uniforme cultuurtaal zit er nog lang niet in, mede doordat iedere poging van
uniformering (spelling en woordenschat) als wezensvreemd voor de grote
variëteit aan voornamelijk mondelinge dialecten wordt afgewezen."
From this I conclude that
* the term "Platduits" is well-known also on your side of the border
* The term "Nedersaksisch" is very recent in Dutch, it is only 15 years old.
2) It is not up to us or to you to invent ISO-Codes. The ISO code for our
language is nds. Please look it up on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_639.
It stands for "German, Low; Low German; Saxon, Low; Low Saxon". Now we have
the following options:
* either we share this ISO code somehow, or (if you do not like that)
* *YOU* sort it out with the ISO-committee and *YOU* get yourself a new one,
because we are legitimate users of this ISO code.
The best way to go in my opinion is to start nds-nl.wikipedia.org. If you do
not like us to continue as nds.wikipedia.org we can move it to
nds-de.wikipedia.org and make a common portal page on nds.wikipedia.org to
direct users to the new address. Besides: If you had been the first to go and
would have written an nds.wikipedia.org in Dutch spelling, I would have voted
to start an nds-de.wikipedia.org.
As I said quite some time ago: both variants of the language do not mix. And
it is not just the spelling. Modern Low Saxon lacks quite a number of words
for modern things and ideas and on our side of the border we have the
tendency to fill in the gaps with High German words (or with words that we
"plattify") and on your border you are doing the same thing. A perfect
example for this your proposed main page on
http://nds.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruker:Servien/Heufdbladsyde. Some examples
* chemistry: Scheikunde: this happens to be exactly the Dutch word. In
Germany we say "Chemie" and I doubt that there is an original LS word.
* medicine: Geneeskunde: this happens to be exactly the Dutch word. In
Germany we say "Medizin" and this happens to be the High-German word.
* religion: "Religie": happens to be exactly the Dutch word. For latin-based
words on "-ion" we retain the ending "-ion" in our variants of Low Saxon,
which happens to be the way it is done in High-German.
* Kleunruumte ("talk room"): Kleun can be a variant of our spelling "klöön",
but ruumte sounds very much like Dutch "ruimte". On our side of the border we
have "ruum", which is very close to High-German "raum".
* suggestion: "suggesties": First of all we have a non-latin word for that:
Vörslag. And concerning latin imports on "-tion" we have the ending
"-tschoon" and you use "-tie", which happens to be exacly like the Dutch
system.
So my conclusion is very simple: you claim to do everything better, but your
own proposal is just a proof that your own Low Saxon has a heavy Dutch bias.
Or should I conclude from this that you too are not a native speaker? (In
fact this is the case as can be seen from
http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gebruiker:Servien)
The only way to go on from here is to accept that it is time for you to go
your way and for us to go our way. Then both nds wikipedias can flourish.
Otherwise we would just go on quarreling over words. Why is that so difficult
to see?
Besides you got your 5 signatures that you wanted to have. So why don't you
just start nds-nl.wikipedia.org.
Kind regards,
Heiko Evermann
>
> Servien
Brion Vibber wrote:
> This tool has not been reviewed for security, and in fact a cursory
> glance does reveal some potential problems. (Additionally we have
> general concerns about database impact of renaming users with long edit
> histories.)
>
> It should not have been turned on at this stage and I'm disabling it for
> now, so an announcement of availability is probably premature. :)
Fixed and re-enabled. Only users with less than 5000 edits may be renamed.
-- Tim Starling
Just a few final remarks from me on the Dutch Low Saxon issue.
> Even though the consensus is to go along with the German-based orthography
> (which alienates speakers in the Netherlands), I strongly suggest that the
> usual orthographic neglect not be perpetuated.
Ok, now I can understand the meaning. Once again, a very good idea. Once again, very academic, too. Reinhard "Ron" Hahn seems to be a very intelligent man. If articles are written in his phonetically more correct way, it surely won't do any harm. But does he really think, you can talk a majority of volunteer, amateur editors into using a method of spelling they are not used to? That "" is not even on their keyboard.
> According to him, such distinctions are made in "better" Platt publications.
Does '"better" Platt publications' mean publications written _in_ Platt or academic publications written _on_ the subject of the Low Saxon language? Linguists often have different ways of writting things down, due to the specific needs of their science. By the way, did you know "th" stands for two different sounds in English? So what about a spelling reform at en: ?
I think if Wikipedia in Low Saxon is supposed to flourish you'll have meet people were they are.
Boris
Mark Williamson <node.ue(a)gmail.com>, wikipedia-l(a)Wikimedia.org schrieb am 10.07.05 07:44:03:
Boris,
Ron's justification is given below. According to him, such
distinctions are made in "better" Platt publications.
>From Ron:
"Even though the consensus is to go along with the German-based orthography
(which alienates speakers in the Netherlands), I strongly suggest that the
usual orthographic neglect not be perpetuated. In ordinary spelling,
people do not distinguish the diphthong /ei/ (written <e(e)>) from the
monophthong /ee/ (written <e(e)>), and they do not distinguish the
dipthong /öi/ (written <öö>) from the monophthong /öö/ (written <ö(ö)>).
As a result of this overly casual spelling method, most learners -- which
includes most younger people -- mispronounce numerous words on the basis
of spelling. Thus, continuing this spelling in a reference resource would
be tantamount to serious neglect and perpetuation of mispronunciation. So
far, these distinctions are made only in better publications, in which the
monophthongs are written <ä(ä)> and <> (or <oe>) respectively. (In some
academic conventions they use <e(e)> and <ö(ö>) with an _ogonek_ (hook),
which, however, is typographically awkward.)"
And then later, this:
"They do reflect important distinction both phonemically and phonetically.
For example:
/leev-n/ ["le:v=m] ~ ["lE:v=m] <Läven> 'life'
/leiv-n/ ["leIv=m] ~ ["laIv=m] <Leven> 'loving'
Spelling without distinction: Leven
/beed-n/ [be:d=n] ~ ["bE:d=n] <bäden> 'to beg', 'to pray'
/beid-n/ ["beId=n] ~ ["baId=n] <beden> 'to offer'
Spelling without distinction: beden
/veet-n/ ["ve:t=n] ~ ["vE:t=n] <Wäten> 'knowledge'
/veitn/ ["veIt=n] ~ ["vaIt=n] <Weten> 'wheat'
Spelling without distinction: Weten
/ööv@r/ ["2:v3`] ~ ["9:v3`] <ver> ~ <oever> 'over', 'across'
/öiv@r/ ["9Iv3`] ~ ["OIv3`] <Över> '(river/lake) bank)
Spelling without distinction: över, Över
/lööv-t/ [l2:ft] ~ [l9:ft] <lvt> ~ <loevt> 'praises'
/löiv-t/ [l9Ift] ~ [lOIft] <löövt> 'believes'
Spelling without distinction: löövt ~ lööft"
>From what I can tell, though, it's definitely not an exaggeration to
say it was "fake" before and is real now -- things that were awkward,
German-syntax-based ways of saying things were modified to more
natural, genuinely Platt/Nedersaksisch ways of saying things.
Mark
On 09/07/05, Boris Lohnzweiger <BorisLohnzweiger(a)web.de> wrote:
>
> > Ron has done quite a job on the article [[Katt]], in a huge effort to
> convert it from Patentplatt to real Platt.
>
> Hi Mark!
>
> Nice job. As far as I'm able to able to judge, the overall language quality of the article was clearly improved. But I think it's an exaggeration to say the article was written in a fake Platt before and is "real" now. Authenticity is often a matter of perspective. Most of the alterations made are not so much about real vs. phony but rather a matter of spelling, dialect differences or even a matter of taste. Some changes aren't really necessary e. g. replacing the very common "mooken" by a seldomly used "möken". One thing I really can't grasp is why Ron/Reinhard introduces the letter "" (which is never used in Germany), e. g. when replacing the authentic Platt word "Ökelnaam" by a weird-looking "kelnaam" for no visible reason.
>
> Best,
> Boris
>
>
>
> Mark Williamson <node.ue(a)gmail.com>, wikipedia-l(a)Wikimedia.org schrieb am 08.07.05 01:18:55:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Ron has done quite a job on the article [[Katt]], in a huge effort to
> convert it from Patentplatt to real Platt.
>
> Diff: http://nds.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Katt&diff=21797&oldid=18531
>
> Mark
>
> On 06/07/05, Mark Williamson <node.ue(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi Boris,
> >
> > I personally think that if in that sample the only extreme differences
> > are "mer" and the future tense, this should not be insurmountable.
> >
> > Brazilian and Iberian Portuguese similarly have some vast differences
> > in verb conjugations (although they use the same orthography...), yet
> > they have a single Wikipedia.
> >
> > I'm sure many Portuguese people are a little bit annoyed when they see
> > people using the second-person singular conjugations for both
> > second-person singular and second-person plural... but then, they're a
> > little bit used to it since Portuguese often visit Brazilian websites,
> > read Brazilian books, watch Brazilian movies... and vice-versa but to
> > a lesser degree.
> >
> > Nevertheless, the fact alone that you were able to identify it as the
> > future tense (as opposed to just completely not knowing) counts for
> > something.
> >
> > Surely, although it might be a bit annoying at first, such a
> > linguistic difference as use or non-use of the future tense is
> > surmountable.
> >
> > Mark
> >
> > On 05/07/05, Boris Lohnzweiger <BorisLohnzweiger(a)web.de> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Servien!
> > >
> > > Thanks for informing me about that. I must admit, I've never heard or read about ANS. So, like the name suggests that's supposed to work in but countries? A good idea for sure. However (and that's a big however), as far as I can tell noboby in Germany ever writes that way. Just have a look a websites from Germany written in nds. You won't ever find all those y's and v's there. Neither in Plattdüütsch literature you can find in book stores in Northern Germany. While that ANS spelling system might be a good thing in theory, I think you just couldn't re-educate thousands of people in order to have one single nds Wikipedia. But I guess I don't have to convince _you_ anyway.
> > >
> > > Thanks for the sample phrase. Here's my try:
> > >
> > > "Wenn <or "As"> en Minsch nich faken noog ruut <"na buten" would also work> kümmt ward he ook nich <equivalent for "höyl" would be "heel" but is usually not used here> bruun <future tense "wöyrden" also omitted here> sünnern blievt witt. <Note: I can`t really think of a word for "pale" now - you could possibly take "bleek" (without "witt" in that case) but I'm not 100% sure here>
> > >
> > > Even though I have tried to stick to your wording as closely as possible, I think the differences are quite tremendous here. They go far beyond spelling. What was most striking to me was the use of the future tense in your sample phrase. The Plattdüütsch I know just doesn't have that - just like in spoken High German where that tense is not used either. But also the word "mer" (that's like "maar" in Dutch, isn't it?) wouldn`t be understood by readers in Germany. Other differences are less severe, of course. E. g. "genog" instead of "noog" would surely be understood, especially since we have "genug" in German. But take "kump" (do you speak an "ü" or an "u" there?) for "kümmt" for example or even "ie/y" instead of "he". If the decision about a Dutch Low Saxon Wikipedia were in my hands and I had to make that decision solely based on this one example - I would most definately create it! Not because I want to separate Dutch and German wikipedians - it's the 21st century and thank God we're good neighbours - but only of the language facts.
> > >
> > > Boris
> > >
> > > Servien Ilaino <servien(a)gmail.com>, wikipedia-l(a)Wikimedia.org schrieb am 05.07.05 15:33:43:
> > >
> > > Hi Boris,
> > >
> > > The orthography used in that text seems to me is de Algemeyne
> > > Neddersassische Schryvwys'... I also used to use it, but people don't
> > > seem to understand it quite as well in the Netherlands and Germany, I
> > > must honestly say I understand the ANS writing system way better then
> > > the one you used at the bottom (of course there are words which are
> > > completely unknown to me...)
> > >
> > > Here is a sample of DLS in ANS writing system:
> > > As 'n mins ny vaak genog buyten kump sal y ok ny höyl bruyn wöyrden
> > > mer sal y spyrwit blyven.
> > >
> > > And here in the traditional one:
> > > As 'n mins nie vaok genog buut'n kump zal ie ok nie heul bruun wurd'n
> > > mer zal ie spierwit bliev'n/blyv'n.
> > >
> > > This is the one I use:
> > > As 'n mins nie vaok genog buten kump sal ie ok nie heul bruun wurden
> > > mer sal ie spierwit blyven. (it's a mixture of the traditional one and
> > > a little from ANS, I don't use the apostrophes because like in the
> > > word blyv'n is pronounced as "bliem" and this is confusing because
> > > bak'n [bake] is also pronounced differently like "bakng".)
> > >
> > > (Translation of the text:
> > > If a person doesn't go outside much then he won't have a tanned look,
> > > but will be pale white.)
> > >
> > > Servien
> > >
> > > 2005/7/5, Boris Lohnzweiger <BorisLohnzweiger(a)web.de>:
> > > >
> > > > > Ahh wait, I see here the accusation is that it's in "Patentplatt", which is "based on Missingsch.
> > > >
> > > > Ok "Patentplatt" or "Fernsehplatt" (TV Platt) as it is called sometimes - that really seems to happen. I think that word is less misleading. Of course, different people will have different views on what is unique and what is not. Languages like German or French have had established unified standards for centuries, so there is hardly ever any doubt what's linguistically correct or not at de: or fr:. Obviously, at nds: you don`t have that degree of unambiguousness. I would really appreciate any efforts to improve the linguistic quality of the Low Saxon Wikipedia. After all, it is still at an early stage. Unfortunetaly, I can't really help here for, being a native in High German, I'd probably only worsen the problem of "Patentplatt".
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > A sample of 'real' Low Saxon written in "AGS" orthography:
> > > > > Lyk so kanst dat in 'n paar dialekten vun de Ünner-Elv' (in Hamborg un kuntray) ook seggen. "Wat" kan daar in sükse vellen lyk as "dat" un > "dey" bruken. I dou dat ook vaken, man tou meyrst wen ik snakken dou.
> > > >
> > > > Where does that come from? The vocabulary is mostly alright. But the spelling looks awfully articifial to me. Never before have I seen anyone using "y" in written Platt. And why should you write "v" when you say "f". Just too make look "less German"? Also, the diphtong "ou" might somehow reflect the pronounciation but is certainly not usually used in Northern Germany. And why should one want to use "kk" instead of "ck"? Just because it's written that way in the Netherlands?? And why is there an apostrophe in " Elv' "? Just because the word is "Elbe" in High German. Complete nonsense, in my humble opinion. I don't want to comment comment on the "real Platt" word "kuntray" but the "I" at the beginning of the last sentence is either Bavarian or English but surely not Platt.
> > > >
> > > > Coming from the "Ünner-Elv'" myself, let me try it:
> > > >
> > > > Liek so kannst dat in'n poor Dialekten vun de Ünnerelv (in Hamborg un ümto) ook seggen. "Wat" kann dor in düsse/sükse Fällen liek as "dat" un "de" bruken. Ick/Ik do dat ook faken, man tomeest wenn ick/ik snack.
> > > >
> > > > Hmm...
> > > >
> > > > Boris
> > > >
> > > > Mark Williamson <node.ue(a)gmail.com>, wikipedia-l(a)Wikimedia.org schrieb am 05.07.05 08:34:13:
> > > >
> > > > Hi Boris,
> > > >
> > > > I'm a bit perplexed as this accusation has been made by a number of
> > > > people on Lowlands-l, most of the accusers being native speakers of
> > > > Low German, and at least one (RF Hahn) also speaking Missingsch. Ahh
> > > > wait, I see here the accusation is that it's in "Patentplatt", which
> > > > is "based on Missingsch".
> > > >
> > > > Accusations: "Unalike the Laich Saxon edeetion whase warkers dinna
> > > > actually ken the leid.
> > > > (It's oor Jonny's pet plaint, his windmill faes, an that richtly.)"
> > > >
> > > > "It doesn't help that language competency is wanting in the current
> > > > WikiPlatt team. Those folks are enthusiastic, and I laud that. But
> > > > they don't know the language well enough. Much or most of it is
> > > > "Patentplatt" (based on Missingsch), i.e. invented on the basis of
> > > > German. I am not at all opposed to introducing technical neologisms,
> > > > but there needs to be first of all a firm grasp of the basic language,
> > > > the grammar and the authentic idiom."
> > > >
> > > > Information on Patentplatt: "The number of Lowlands Saxon speakers ...
> > > > would be large if it included people who are somewhat conversant ...
> > > > and it would be even larger if it included those who ... can really
> > > > only manage lexically, idiomatically and grammatically deficient,
> > > > German-based, "made-up Platt" (Patentplatt)."
> > > >
> > > > This is very concerning, and is clearly a major factor in the
> > > > difficulty people from the Netherlands are having reading NDS.wiki. I
> > > > just dashed off an e-mail to Ron to remind him that he is always
> > > > welcome to "fix" the Patentplatt, because of course it's Wikipedia.
> > > >
> > > > Obviously, this isn't the only factor, and I'm not sure if it's even
> > > > the greatest factor. But, I feel that we should explore that.
> > > >
> > > > A sample of 'real' Low Saxon written in "AGS" orthography:
> > > >
> > > > Lyk so kanst dat in 'n paar dialekten vun de Ünner-Elv' (in Hamborg un
> > > > kuntray) ook seggen. "Wat" kan daar in sükse vellen lyk as "dat" un
> > > > "dey" bruken. I dou dat ook vaken, man tou meyrst wen ik snakken dou.
> > > >
> > > > Hmm...
> > > >
> > > > Best
> > > > Mark
> > > >
> > > > On 04/07/05, Boris Lohnzweiger <BorisLohnzweiger(a)web.de> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi Mark!
> > > > >
> > > > > I was quite perplexed to read that they write Missingsch in the Low Saxon Wikipedia. So I just went there and checked out ten random pages. Having grown up in a rural area near Hamburg, it`s easy for me tell apart Low Saxon from Missingsch. The whole issue seems to be very exaggerated. All ten articles I've read were without a doubt in Plattdüütsch. Of course single articles might not be - I haven`t checked the whole Wikipedia. However, one can note that depending on the subject of the article the share of words that very closely resemble standard German words or are even identical (in writing !) is sometimes quite high. But this is a usual phenomenon in Low Saxon. Generally speaking, the more scientific a text gets the closer it comes to Hochdeutsch. Surely, sometimes this can lead to the fact that certain passages of articles don`t look too much like Platt. This can been seen very clearly in this article: http://nds.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reptilia . It has two sections, both written by the same author, as far as I can tell. The first ("Norddüütsche Slangen") is very "pure" Low Saxon. The second ("Systematik") looks very much like standard German, due to its topic. I think even without knowing both languages in detail you can easily tell the difference. But this is not to be confused with Missingsch. You just couldn`t say that differently or more "real", if you want.
> > > > >
> > > > > I don`t who actually brought up this Missingsch issue (native speaker? hobby linguist?). But as a matter of fact, nds-WP is written in Low Saxon. If individual pages are in other languages (which to some degree happens in many Wikipedias) the guys at nds can certainly cope with that. However, I disbelieve that this part of the reason native speakers of Low Saxon in the Netherlands ask for a separate WP.
_________________________________________________________________________
Mit der Gruppen-SMS von WEB.DE FreeMail können Sie eine SMS an alle
Freunde gleichzeitig schicken: http://freemail.web.de/features/?mc=021179
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
> You write that the subscribers at this list are all language entheuasiasts.
I phrased it wrongly. Of course, it's not a language list in the first place.
> The idea of people who do not speak a language want to have
> a Wikipedia so that they can dabble in it is not what I like to see, I
> do not think it enhances Wikipedia's reputation.
Fully agreed. That's exactly what I was trying to point out. Fortunately, the rule that you need five native speakers to start a new Wikipedia seems to gain more and more supporters lately. That could prevent a lot of futile discussion in the future.
> When I heard that Nauruans walked away disgusted with what we brought to the table I was apalled.
na: is in fact more like a parody than like a real encyclopedia. I wish someone stop that hanky-panky there for the sake of the project's reputation.
> Sorry Boris nothing personal this has been building up for some time.
That's alright. Thanks for reminding us/me.
Boris
_________________________________________________________________________
Mit der Gruppen-SMS von WEB.DE FreeMail können Sie eine SMS an alle
Freunde gleichzeitig schicken: http://freemail.web.de/features/?mc=021179
> Wouter Steenbeek wrote:
> Besides, I think the Wikipedia phaenomenon is a tool to make languages
> emancipate and being used aside.
I'd rather say "could be, in the best case". But I think that potential is often highly overrated. I guess here at wikipedia-l we're all language enthusiasts to some degree (ofterwise we'd probably not be subscribers). What has happened a lot in the past was this: one of those "language geeks" in Europe, Northern America or wherever stumbled across some native language of Asia, Africa, Oceania, the Arctic, Native America or so on the Internet and noticed that there isn't a Wikipedia for that language. So he or she requested one. With the best of intentions, of course. Sometimes they'd even think that the mere existence of a Wikipedia might improve the status of a language not officially recognised / marginalized / threatened. IMHO, that's _quite_ naive, a WP could never be more than one small piece of a puzzle. We can really do a lot here but I think believing we can change the world's language landscape is on the verge of hubris.
If a Wikipedia, as a secondary or tertiary effect, proves to benefit a certain language or community - fine. But in my opinion new editions should never be created for those secondary or tertiary aims but only for the primary one: the spread of knowledge. However, like most of the time, I can understand Wouter's intentions, too.
Boris
_________________________________________________________________________
Mit der Gruppen-SMS von WEB.DE FreeMail können Sie eine SMS an alle
Freunde gleichzeitig schicken: http://freemail.web.de/features/?mc=021179
> Ron has done quite a job on the article [[Katt]], in a huge effort to
convert it from Patentplatt to real Platt.
Hi Mark!
Nice job. As far as I'm able to able to judge, the overall language quality of the article was clearly improved. But I think it's an exaggeration to say the article was written in a fake Platt before and is "real" now. Authenticity is often a matter of perspective. Most of the alterations made are not so much about real vs. phony but rather a matter of spelling, dialect differences or even a matter of taste. Some changes aren't really necessary e. g. replacing the very common "mooken" by a seldomly used "möken". One thing I really can't grasp is why Ron/Reinhard introduces the letter "" (which is never used in Germany), e. g. when replacing the authentic Platt word "Ökelnaam" by a weird-looking "kelnaam" for no visible reason.
Best,
Boris
Mark Williamson <node.ue(a)gmail.com>, wikipedia-l(a)Wikimedia.org schrieb am 08.07.05 01:18:55:
Hi all,
Ron has done quite a job on the article [[Katt]], in a huge effort to
convert it from Patentplatt to real Platt.
Diff: http://nds.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Katt&diff=21797&oldid=18531
Mark
On 06/07/05, Mark Williamson <node.ue(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Boris,
>
> I personally think that if in that sample the only extreme differences
> are "mer" and the future tense, this should not be insurmountable.
>
> Brazilian and Iberian Portuguese similarly have some vast differences
> in verb conjugations (although they use the same orthography...), yet
> they have a single Wikipedia.
>
> I'm sure many Portuguese people are a little bit annoyed when they see
> people using the second-person singular conjugations for both
> second-person singular and second-person plural... but then, they're a
> little bit used to it since Portuguese often visit Brazilian websites,
> read Brazilian books, watch Brazilian movies... and vice-versa but to
> a lesser degree.
>
> Nevertheless, the fact alone that you were able to identify it as the
> future tense (as opposed to just completely not knowing) counts for
> something.
>
> Surely, although it might be a bit annoying at first, such a
> linguistic difference as use or non-use of the future tense is
> surmountable.
>
> Mark
>
> On 05/07/05, Boris Lohnzweiger <BorisLohnzweiger(a)web.de> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Servien!
> >
> > Thanks for informing me about that. I must admit, I've never heard or read about ANS. So, like the name suggests that's supposed to work in but countries? A good idea for sure. However (and that's a big however), as far as I can tell noboby in Germany ever writes that way. Just have a look a websites from Germany written in nds. You won't ever find all those y's and v's there. Neither in Plattdüütsch literature you can find in book stores in Northern Germany. While that ANS spelling system might be a good thing in theory, I think you just couldn't re-educate thousands of people in order to have one single nds Wikipedia. But I guess I don't have to convince _you_ anyway.
> >
> > Thanks for the sample phrase. Here's my try:
> >
> > "Wenn <or "As"> en Minsch nich faken noog ruut <"na buten" would also work> kümmt ward he ook nich <equivalent for "höyl" would be "heel" but is usually not used here> bruun <future tense "wöyrden" also omitted here> sünnern blievt witt. <Note: I can`t really think of a word for "pale" now - you could possibly take "bleek" (without "witt" in that case) but I'm not 100% sure here>
> >
> > Even though I have tried to stick to your wording as closely as possible, I think the differences are quite tremendous here. They go far beyond spelling. What was most striking to me was the use of the future tense in your sample phrase. The Plattdüütsch I know just doesn't have that - just like in spoken High German where that tense is not used either. But also the word "mer" (that's like "maar" in Dutch, isn't it?) wouldn`t be understood by readers in Germany. Other differences are less severe, of course. E. g. "genog" instead of "noog" would surely be understood, especially since we have "genug" in German. But take "kump" (do you speak an "ü" or an "u" there?) for "kümmt" for example or even "ie/y" instead of "he". If the decision about a Dutch Low Saxon Wikipedia were in my hands and I had to make that decision solely based on this one example - I would most definately create it! Not because I want to separate Dutch and German wikipedians - it's the 21st century and thank God we're good neighbours - but only of the language facts.
> >
> > Boris
> >
> > Servien Ilaino <servien(a)gmail.com>, wikipedia-l(a)Wikimedia.org schrieb am 05.07.05 15:33:43:
> >
> > Hi Boris,
> >
> > The orthography used in that text seems to me is de Algemeyne
> > Neddersassische Schryvwys'... I also used to use it, but people don't
> > seem to understand it quite as well in the Netherlands and Germany, I
> > must honestly say I understand the ANS writing system way better then
> > the one you used at the bottom (of course there are words which are
> > completely unknown to me...)
> >
> > Here is a sample of DLS in ANS writing system:
> > As 'n mins ny vaak genog buyten kump sal y ok ny höyl bruyn wöyrden
> > mer sal y spyrwit blyven.
> >
> > And here in the traditional one:
> > As 'n mins nie vaok genog buut'n kump zal ie ok nie heul bruun wurd'n
> > mer zal ie spierwit bliev'n/blyv'n.
> >
> > This is the one I use:
> > As 'n mins nie vaok genog buten kump sal ie ok nie heul bruun wurden
> > mer sal ie spierwit blyven. (it's a mixture of the traditional one and
> > a little from ANS, I don't use the apostrophes because like in the
> > word blyv'n is pronounced as "bliem" and this is confusing because
> > bak'n [bake] is also pronounced differently like "bakng".)
> >
> > (Translation of the text:
> > If a person doesn't go outside much then he won't have a tanned look,
> > but will be pale white.)
> >
> > Servien
> >
> > 2005/7/5, Boris Lohnzweiger <BorisLohnzweiger(a)web.de>:
> > >
> > > > Ahh wait, I see here the accusation is that it's in "Patentplatt", which is "based on Missingsch.
> > >
> > > Ok "Patentplatt" or "Fernsehplatt" (TV Platt) as it is called sometimes - that really seems to happen. I think that word is less misleading. Of course, different people will have different views on what is unique and what is not. Languages like German or French have had established unified standards for centuries, so there is hardly ever any doubt what's linguistically correct or not at de: or fr:. Obviously, at nds: you don`t have that degree of unambiguousness. I would really appreciate any efforts to improve the linguistic quality of the Low Saxon Wikipedia. After all, it is still at an early stage. Unfortunetaly, I can't really help here for, being a native in High German, I'd probably only worsen the problem of "Patentplatt".
> > >
> > >
> > > > A sample of 'real' Low Saxon written in "AGS" orthography:
> > > > Lyk so kanst dat in 'n paar dialekten vun de Ünner-Elv' (in Hamborg un kuntray) ook seggen. "Wat" kan daar in sükse vellen lyk as "dat" un > "dey" bruken. I dou dat ook vaken, man tou meyrst wen ik snakken dou.
> > >
> > > Where does that come from? The vocabulary is mostly alright. But the spelling looks awfully articifial to me. Never before have I seen anyone using "y" in written Platt. And why should you write "v" when you say "f". Just too make look "less German"? Also, the diphtong "ou" might somehow reflect the pronounciation but is certainly not usually used in Northern Germany. And why should one want to use "kk" instead of "ck"? Just because it's written that way in the Netherlands?? And why is there an apostrophe in " Elv' "? Just because the word is "Elbe" in High German. Complete nonsense, in my humble opinion. I don't want to comment comment on the "real Platt" word "kuntray" but the "I" at the beginning of the last sentence is either Bavarian or English but surely not Platt.
> > >
> > > Coming from the "Ünner-Elv'" myself, let me try it:
> > >
> > > Liek so kannst dat in'n poor Dialekten vun de Ünnerelv (in Hamborg un ümto) ook seggen. "Wat" kann dor in düsse/sükse Fällen liek as "dat" un "de" bruken. Ick/Ik do dat ook faken, man tomeest wenn ick/ik snack.
> > >
> > > Hmm...
> > >
> > > Boris
> > >
> > > Mark Williamson <node.ue(a)gmail.com>, wikipedia-l(a)Wikimedia.org schrieb am 05.07.05 08:34:13:
> > >
> > > Hi Boris,
> > >
> > > I'm a bit perplexed as this accusation has been made by a number of
> > > people on Lowlands-l, most of the accusers being native speakers of
> > > Low German, and at least one (RF Hahn) also speaking Missingsch. Ahh
> > > wait, I see here the accusation is that it's in "Patentplatt", which
> > > is "based on Missingsch".
> > >
> > > Accusations: "Unalike the Laich Saxon edeetion whase warkers dinna
> > > actually ken the leid.
> > > (It's oor Jonny's pet plaint, his windmill faes, an that richtly.)"
> > >
> > > "It doesn't help that language competency is wanting in the current
> > > WikiPlatt team. Those folks are enthusiastic, and I laud that. But
> > > they don't know the language well enough. Much or most of it is
> > > "Patentplatt" (based on Missingsch), i.e. invented on the basis of
> > > German. I am not at all opposed to introducing technical neologisms,
> > > but there needs to be first of all a firm grasp of the basic language,
> > > the grammar and the authentic idiom."
> > >
> > > Information on Patentplatt: "The number of Lowlands Saxon speakers ...
> > > would be large if it included people who are somewhat conversant ...
> > > and it would be even larger if it included those who ... can really
> > > only manage lexically, idiomatically and grammatically deficient,
> > > German-based, "made-up Platt" (Patentplatt)."
> > >
> > > This is very concerning, and is clearly a major factor in the
> > > difficulty people from the Netherlands are having reading NDS.wiki. I
> > > just dashed off an e-mail to Ron to remind him that he is always
> > > welcome to "fix" the Patentplatt, because of course it's Wikipedia.
> > >
> > > Obviously, this isn't the only factor, and I'm not sure if it's even
> > > the greatest factor. But, I feel that we should explore that.
> > >
> > > A sample of 'real' Low Saxon written in "AGS" orthography:
> > >
> > > Lyk so kanst dat in 'n paar dialekten vun de Ünner-Elv' (in Hamborg un
> > > kuntray) ook seggen. "Wat" kan daar in sükse vellen lyk as "dat" un
> > > "dey" bruken. I dou dat ook vaken, man tou meyrst wen ik snakken dou.
> > >
> > > Hmm...
> > >
> > > Best
> > > Mark
> > >
> > > On 04/07/05, Boris Lohnzweiger <BorisLohnzweiger(a)web.de> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi Mark!
> > > >
> > > > I was quite perplexed to read that they write Missingsch in the Low Saxon Wikipedia. So I just went there and checked out ten random pages. Having grown up in a rural area near Hamburg, it`s easy for me tell apart Low Saxon from Missingsch. The whole issue seems to be very exaggerated. All ten articles I've read were without a doubt in Plattdüütsch. Of course single articles might not be - I haven`t checked the whole Wikipedia. However, one can note that depending on the subject of the article the share of words that very closely resemble standard German words or are even identical (in writing !) is sometimes quite high. But this is a usual phenomenon in Low Saxon. Generally speaking, the more scientific a text gets the closer it comes to Hochdeutsch. Surely, sometimes this can lead to the fact that certain passages of articles don`t look too much like Platt. This can been seen very clearly in this article: http://nds.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reptilia . It has two sections, both written by the same author, as far as I can tell. The first ("Norddüütsche Slangen") is very "pure" Low Saxon. The second ("Systematik") looks very much like standard German, due to its topic. I think even without knowing both languages in detail you can easily tell the difference. But this is not to be confused with Missingsch. You just couldn`t say that differently or more "real", if you want.
> > > >
> > > > I don`t who actually brought up this Missingsch issue (native speaker? hobby linguist?). But as a matter of fact, nds-WP is written in Low Saxon. If individual pages are in other languages (which to some degree happens in many Wikipedias) the guys at nds can certainly cope with that. However, I disbelieve that this part of the reason native speakers of Low Saxon in the Netherlands ask for a separate WP.
> > > >
> > > > Boris
> > > >
> > > > Mark Williamson <node.ue(a)gmail.com>, wikipedia-l(a)Wikimedia.org schrieb am 04.07.05 01:38:06:
> > > >
> > > > Also, it seems to me that Walter, Wouter, and Servien are intent on
> > > > ignoring the issue of nds.wiki being in Missingsch rather than real
> > > > nds. But this is a real issue, and we need to deal with it. I have
> > > > personally received complaints from members of lowlands-l about
> > > > nds.wiki being in Missingsch, which is not actually Low Saxon but
> > > > rather a "contact variety".
> > > >
> > > > Surely, mutual intelligiblity would be increased very much if this
> > > > huge problem were solved. I'm sure one of the main problems is the
> > > > fact that it's written in Missingsch.
> > > >
> > > > Perhaps before starting nds-nl.wiki, somebody should start
> > > > real-nds.wiki, and after that we can see if things are any better.
> > > >
> > > > Mark
> > > >
> > > > _________________________________________________________________________
> > > > Mit der Gruppen-SMS von WEB.DE FreeMail können Sie eine SMS an alle
> > > > Freunde gleichzeitig schicken: http://freemail.web.de/features/?mc=021179
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > SI HOC LEGERE SCIS NIMIVM ERVDITIONIS HABES
> > > QVANTVM MATERIAE MATERIETVR MARMOTA MONAX SI MARMOTA MONAX MATERIAM
> > > POSSIT MATERIARI
> > > ESTNE VOLVMEN IN TOGA AN SOLVM TIBI LIBET ME VIDERE
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > > Wikipedia-l(a)Wikimedia.org
> > > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> > >
> > > _________________________________________________________________________
> > > Mit der Gruppen-SMS von WEB.DE FreeMail können Sie eine SMS an alle
> > > Freunde gleichzeitig schicken: http://freemail.web.de/features/?mc=021179
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > > Wikipedia-l(a)Wikimedia.org
> > > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > Wikipedia-l(a)Wikimedia.org
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> >
> > ______________________________________________________________
> > Verschicken Sie romantische, coole und witzige Bilder per SMS!
> > Jetzt bei WEB.DE FreeMail: http://f.web.de/?mc=021193
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > Wikipedia-l(a)Wikimedia.org
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> >
>
> --
> SI HOC LEGERE SCIS NIMIVM ERVDITIONIS HABES
> QVANTVM MATERIAE MATERIETVR MARMOTA MONAX SI MARMOTA MONAX MATERIAM
> POSSIT MATERIARI
> ESTNE VOLVMEN IN TOGA AN SOLVM TIBI LIBET ME VIDERE
>
--
SI HOC LEGERE SCIS NIMIVM ERVDITIONIS HABES
QVANTVM MATERIAE MATERIETVR MARMOTA MONAX SI MARMOTA MONAX MATERIAM
POSSIT MATERIARI
ESTNE VOLVMEN IN TOGA AN SOLVM TIBI LIBET ME VIDERE
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
Wikipedia-l(a)Wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
_________________________________________________________________________
Mit der Gruppen-SMS von WEB.DE FreeMail können Sie eine SMS an alle
Freunde gleichzeitig schicken: http://freemail.web.de/features/?mc=021179
Hi Tomasz,
By stating the fact that they aren't working now I didn't mean to imply that they will never work. Me too, I believe the Kashubian Wikipedia has a future. But I think one also has to acknowledge that presently roughly half of all Wikipedias look different than the German, Polish or even Kashubian editions in their early days (=historical perspective). It's not like they grow slowly - they don't grow at all even though many of them have existed for two or more years now. The reasons are manifold, of course, and have been discussed here before.
I fully agree with you that any useful encyclopedia needs 10k+ (quality) articles to be a useful source of information. Think of a printed encyclopedia with less articles. You'd never be able to find the information you're looking for and it would probably only tell you things you already know. I'd most likely just throw it away. Bottom line: it takes a huge number of articles and that takes a large number of editors (with good language skills, preferably native speakers). And I think it's this very fact that people ignore when suggesting e. g. a Wikipedia in Chinook Trade Jargon. Who is supposed to write that encyclopdia?
Just like you, Tomasz, I expect and hope many of the minor WPs to grow in the future. But I doubt that e. g. Interlingue, Nauruan, Yiddish, Lojban, Klingon, Volapük, Hawaiian, Aromanian, Manx, Gothic, Pali, Aramaic, Choctaw, Hiri Motu or Muscogee will ever reach that critical mass where they can rightly be considered as encyclopedias. In my opion, that's a fact we must not overlook when discussing about new language editions of Wikipedia.
Boris
wikipedia-l(a)Wikimedia.org schrieb am 09.07.05 14:25:56:
On Sat, Jul 09, 2005 at 01:37:50PM +0200, Boris Lohnzweiger wrote:
> However, I think it's finally time to realize that not every language is suitable
> for a wikipedia. Matter of fact, from a realistic perspective we have more
> Wikipedias that aren't working than ones that are.
You lost historical perspective. I remember times when German Wikipedia had
so friggin awesome 1200 articles (mostly stubs, by today's standards),
and we tried to get over 500 on the Polish Wikipedia.
It wasn't such a long time ago. Now the German Wikipedia seems like the best
German-language encyclopedia ever made, and the Polish Wikipedia is likely to
reach similar status in a year or two.
On the other hand Kashubian Wikipedia has now 661 articles and
so many people consider it a hopeless effort that can't possibly work.
Not all of the currently small Wikipedias will grow, but it's very likely
that most of them will get to into "useful" (10k+ articles) range in just
a few years, and by then we will have a lot of new small Wikipedias
that people will keep whining about, how hopeless their efforts supposedly are.
I, for one, believe the Kashubian Wikipedia and others like it have future.
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
Wikipedia-l(a)Wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
_________________________________________________________________________
Mit der Gruppen-SMS von WEB.DE FreeMail können Sie eine SMS an alle
Freunde gleichzeitig schicken: http://freemail.web.de/features/?mc=021179
Thanks for this suggestion (and the URL). I've put a few words there to make
it appear to exist, and I'll go see if I can dig up any of my more fluent
friends to participate.
Leland = Haruo = dzidzelalic
PS Mark, thanks for the clarification on "natural"; I prefer to think of
pidgins as "accidentally constructed" languages (as opposed to intentionally
constructed ones like the ophthalmologist's you allude to)
--
Meet the Whole World Halfway — Learn and Use Esperanto!
www.lernu.net <http://www.lernu.net>
Mia TTTejo : http://www.scn.org/~lilandbr/
In the discussion on setting up Ladino, Angela gave some useful
information which included that (paraphrasing from memory) "for
natural languages, once there are five supporters and no objections,
it can be set up".
I'm interested in how the standards differ for "unnatural languages",
and/or what the line of demarcation is (or are there several). I'm
also interested in what happens if there *is* an objection to a
particular language. As an Esperantist (but not denaska) I always see
a red flag in the phrase "natural languages", since subjectively to me
Esperanto is quite as natural as my original native langauge, English,
and much more natural than my attempts at, say, Dutch. But the case I
have in mind is Chinook Jargon. I've been talking up the idea of a
Chinuk Wawa Wikipedia on CJ mailing lists, and there is some favorable
response. But is it a "natural language"? (And if not, what hoops does
it have to jump through to get a wiki?) It started out, after all, as
sort of the Esperanto of the Northwest Coast. Now it survives in
actual spoken use mainly on the Grand Ronde Reservation in Oregon,
though there are hundreds of people around the world who use it to
some extent in writing (including on the web), most of whom use a form
closer to the original pidgin than to the creole now spoken at GR; but
all these people consider themselves in some sense members of a single
language community.
Haruo
--
Meet the Whole World Halfway — Learn and Use Esperanto!
www.lernu.net
Mia TTTejo : http://www.scn.org/~lilandbr/