Indeed. However, what is there could probably go on a Syriac Wikisource with a note at the beginning that it is in Aramaic and not Syriac. (Aramaic is the liturgical language of the Syriac church, while Syriac is used in daily life and in non-religious writings)
--node
On Fri, 8 Oct 2004 15:29:45 -0400, Sj 2.718281828@gmail.com wrote:
There is an audience for an arc: section of wikisource, at least. ~sj
On Fri, 8 Oct 2004 10:27:14 -0700, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all.
Just a short question:
Why is it that we have a Wikipedia for the ancient, dead language Aramaic http://arc.wikipedia.org/ - no content currently, but none for its modern descendent Syriac (or "Neo-Aramaic"), spoken by millions, which according to the ISO code would be at http://syr.wikipedia.org/ ? Presumably, the number of people who could actually read and fully understand an Aramaic Wikipedia would be very low, while the number of people who could read and understand a Syriac Wikipedia would be in the range of millions of people, almost exclusively native speakers.
Also there is the issue of what script to write it in: it would seem that some people would write Aramaic in the Syriac script, and others in the Hebrew script; on the other hand, Syriac is written exclusively in the Syriac script.
I think that ultimately, the existance of arc: is not a Good Thing, but that the existance of syr: would indeed be a Good Thing, especially as there are people fex the people at the Beth Marduto institute who would probably contribute to syr:.
--node _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
-- +sj+ _ _ :-------.-.--------.--.--------.-.--------.--.--------[...]