On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 15:44:10 +0800, Sheng Jiong sheng.jiong@gmail.com wrote:
If anything, Singlish is less mutually intelligible with "standard English" than either Scots or Ulster Scots are. The main difference seems to be that, while the Scottish government wishes to promote the use of Scots as a legitimate language, the Singaporean government takes the opposite view of Singlish.
I do not think that it is entirely due to the view of the government. There is also strong opposition within the country, among the ordinary speakers of the language. People have gotten used to the thinking that "when I write, I should use standard English; when I speak to a fellow Singaporean, there is no need to be so formal". Before they begin to change their mindsets and decide to write in the way they usually talk (as China experienced in 1910s and 20s, and many other countries too. And I personally see it as a result of the increasing nationalistic feelings), should Wikipedia recognise the language so fast? The potential danger is the undermining of our credibility.
Well, for Wikipedia, I think beside of the factor of such "credibility" (although for myself, I could never imagine how allowing versions less written could reduce people's confidence in the whole project; I'd guess that such crisis of confidence occurs when people have their own despise and discrimination towards such languages), "freedon" and "toleration" are also what make it different and revolutionary from "traditional" encyclopediae. While the incredibility and doubt of some people (in fact most people don't even knew that there ARE significant distinction among Chinese languages in both verbal and text form; they just need to be educated and most of the time would listen and recognize, unless they were too stubborn to admit.) may make them view Wikipedia "lower" and "less credible", but Wikipedia would also benefit from hosting and sponsoring these versions. If they work, MORE THAN HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of people WILL be grateful to the Wikimedia foundation. Don't only look upon the presence (especially when the presence is not so pessimistic as have been described), think about the future development and the spirit of Wikipedia.
I guess this brings up the question of how we distinguish between these. Should we care what the relevant governments think?
Indeed. Wikipedia used to take ISO 639 as a guideline for the setting up of Wikipedias. But now this has apparently been abandoned, and it becomes harder for us to determine really a written language does exist.
formulax _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l