Hoi,
Considering what you say, you provide a perfect argument why NOT to localise
the user interface of an extinct language. So far we have always insisted on
a localised UI.
Thanks,
GerardM
On 7/11/07, Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote:
2007/7/5, GerardM:
>In the language committee we are not really happy with artificial
languages
>or with languages long dead that are given a
new lease of life because
"we
>can". In dead languages you have to do
original research in order to be
able
>to name the concepts that are modern and
foreign to that language as we
know
>it. Wikipedia is not about original research
and you have to create new
>words and in the process change the language in order to write an
>encyclopaedia that is to be used in this day and age.
>
>
At one time I had an old medical dictionary (ca. 1820), and the entry
for "cadaver" started with "A cadaver is generally immobile."
Immobility for these dead languages means that they are no longer able
to move, and generate new life. We cannot expect that the new
terminology that we invent for it will be accepted by the people who
normally speak that language, because those people don't exist. Our
newly invented words do not rise above the level of fantasy. The
resulting encyclopedia is indeed to be used in this day and age, but
only by people who do not exist.
Ec
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
Wikipedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l