Wikipedia-l April 2008

wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org

21 participants
13 discussions

Re: [Wikipedia-l] standardizing a language
by daniwo59＠aol.com 03 Apr '08

03 Apr '08

Gerard is absolutely correct here. It may be the job of the WMF to create a record of all languages living and dead, but it is not the job of the WMF to create living languages from dead ones. D In a message dated 4/2/2008 1:58:03 PM Eastern Daylight Time, gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com writes: Hoi, You do not discover about a language when in the process you change it beyond recognition. The correct word for such an endeavour is called reconstruction. When we tell people we have a Wikipedia in a language and people turn to it in order to learn that language, we do them a disservice. This is quit against what the Wikimedia Foundation stands for because in this way we do not provide valid information. Thanks, GerardM **************Planning your summer road trip? Check out AOL Travel Guides. (http://travel.aol.com/travel-guide/united-states?ncid=aoltrv00030000000016)

5 12

standardizing a language
by James Robert Johnson 02 Apr '08

02 Apr '08

Hey everyone, I usually troll on here, reading, but not participating in discussions, but I wanted to ask something. Old English is a dead language, yet has a living Wikipedia. For this wiki, we essentially use Early West Saxon, but the original language never had a single standard spelling. What does everyone think about using a standardized spelling for this language, as used in the Clark Hall dictionary of Anglo Saxon? I welcome any comments. James

7 21

Re: [Wikipedia-l] standardizing a language
by modean52＠comcast.net 02 Apr '08

02 Apr '08

Hi Mark, everyone, What has been the case was *basing the spelling on the dictionaries of Old English Made Easy, which is based on Clark Hall's Dictionary of Anglo-Saxon, as well as further expansion from the Bosworth and Toller dictionary. There was one spelling for one word, to attempt to avoid confusion for new readers. The spelling is early West Saxon. * macrons instead of accents for long vowels (I wasn't too much in favor of that, but that's over and done with) * avoid dotted c/g for compatibility and that the language rules essentially let you know when it is or isn't a palatal consonant *Use 'y' as a front vowel like German ü, not in place of 'i' and avoid 'ie' when 'i' is historically accurate Some scholars use late West Saxon, but that is a little more mixed, so we kept with Early West Saxon. This is the practice for about 4 years now on the OE wiki. James -------------- Original message ---------------------- From: "Mark Williamson" <node.ue(a)gmail.com> > And I think that is what somebody else is doing on this thread. > > The Old English Wikipedia exists, it is not going anywhere soon, so > let's stop criticising it, shall we? > > Now, what is the standard for writing Old English within the scholarly > community? If there is no consensus, which system is the most widely > used? There is your answer. > > Mark > > On 02/04/2008, Mike R <tacodeposit(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 6:39 AM, James Robert Johnson > > <modean52(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > > > > Hey everyone, > > > > > > I usually troll on here, reading, but not participating in > > > discussions, > > > > > > The word is "lurk." "Troll" means something else. > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Wikipedia-l mailing list > > Wikipedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l > > > > _______________________________________________ > Wikipedia-l mailing list > Wikipedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l

1 0

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

Wikipedia-l April 2008