One could draw that conclusion, but far be it from me to step on sacred toes ... even extinct ones. :-)
Ec
GerardM wrote:
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 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.