I think that if there are people who speak the
language, even if in a
merely academic context, a Wikipedia is worthwhile. What about the
On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 12:08:02 +0200, Andre Engels <andrewiki(a)freemail.nl> wrote:
>On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 10:18:09 +0000 Fredrik Adevåg <gadrauhts(a)hotmail.com>
>>I'd like to be responsible for the creation of a wikipediaversion in
>>Full name: gothic
>>Language code: got
>>Number of speakers: 0
>>Number of people which has knowledge about gothic: at least 400, probably
>I still am very wary about putting Wikipedia in dead languages. Reason is
>that in my opinion the first function of Wikipedia is to bring over the
>information content in the articles; the language, in my opinion, is just a
>means to do this, it should not be a goal in its own. Because, as far as I
>can see, nobody would _prefer_ to have Gothic as the language in which s/he
>gets this information, I don't think having a Gothic Wikipedia aids in this
>goal (and yes, there are languages in which Wikipedia already exists with
>which I have the same objections).
>My doubts would be much lessened if you could give me evidence that the
>language is actually used - in the sense of being written/spoken rather than
>just read. I would like to ask this:
>Can you specify a body of literature written in Gothic, from recent date
>(say, after World War II)?
Latin is still spoken; it is one of the official languages of the Vatican.