Sorry - there have been about 6 million speakers at the height of usage of Old English. I guess it's like Latin in being a dead language, but just as deserving of a Wiki.
James
_____
From: James R. Johnson [mailto:modean52@comcast.net] Sent: Wednesday, August 04, 2004 11:31 PM To: 'wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org' Subject: Wikipedia for Old English
Hello all, I would like to request and start a wikipedia for Old English. The ISO code is ang, and there are 3 mailing/discussion lists for the language. If anyone could help me out in getting it started, I'd appreciate it.
James
"James R. Johnson" modean52@comcast.net writes:
I guess it's like Latin in being a dead language, but just as deserving of a Wiki.
Encyclopedia writer should try to get the facts right before posting. Latin is still in use (and it was never dead). And, more important, Latin something like a sleeping lingua franca.
Why do you think it would be a good idea writing texts using Old English?
May I ask why Klingon, and Esperanto have Wikis?
James
-----Original Message----- From: wikipedia-l-bounces@Wikimedia.org [mailto:wikipedia-l-bounces@Wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Karl Eichwalder Sent: Thursday, August 05, 2004 10:49 AM To: wikipedia-l@wikipedia.org Subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: FW: Wikipedia for Old English
"James R. Johnson" modean52@comcast.net writes:
I guess it's like Latin in being a dead language, but just as deserving of a Wiki.
Encyclopedia writer should try to get the facts right before posting. Latin is still in use (and it was never dead). And, more important, Latin something like a sleeping lingua franca.
Why do you think it would be a good idea writing texts using Old English?
James R. Johnson wrote:
May I ask why Klingon, and Esperanto have Wikis?
Esperanto is an active community. Don't even ask about Klingon, that's a long and sad story.
I fully support your request to have Old English, it has an ISO 639 3-letter code (ang), after all.
I don't think "Why do you think it would be a good idea?" is much of an objection to your plan. Unless there's some reason to think that it's a bad idea (Klingon, for example, was and is controversial), then if people want to do it, they should do it. "I would enjoy working on it" is a perfectly valid reason.
--Jimbo
Hey Jimbo, Thanks for the kind words and support. I would enjoy working on it very much, as would the people on the Old English mailing lists ENGLISH-L, Old English Made Easy, and Forum for Composition in Old English. What was the deal with Klingon? How'd that get a Wiki? OE is still active as a language, with new works being written even now, and translation projects going for the Bible, Shakespeare, and other works of literature.
James
-----Original Message----- From: wikipedia-l-bounces@Wikimedia.org [mailto:wikipedia-l-bounces@Wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales Sent: Thursday, August 05, 2004 1:10 PM To: wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Re: FW: Wikipedia for Old English
James R. Johnson wrote:
May I ask why Klingon, and Esperanto have Wikis?
Esperanto is an active community. Don't even ask about Klingon, that's a long and sad story.
I fully support your request to have Old English, it has an ISO 639 3-letter code (ang), after all.
I don't think "Why do you think it would be a good idea?" is much of an objection to your plan. Unless there's some reason to think that it's a bad idea (Klingon, for example, was and is controversial), then if people want to do it, they should do it. "I would enjoy working on it" is a perfectly valid reason.
--Jimbo _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Kaixo!
On Thu, Aug 05, 2004 at 01:19:44PM -0400, James R. Johnson wrote:
OE is still active as a language, with new works being written evennow, and translation projects going for the Bible, Shakespeare, and other works of literature.
But consider that wikipedia goal is not to be a compialtion of litterary and translation works (wikibook, on the other hand, is), but a medium to serve information on all (or at least a wide range) of topics, in a given language.
Transposed to classroom analogy, wikipedia is not a class given in English about Anglosaxon culture, but it is mathematics, physics, biology etc classes teached in Anglosaxon language.
You should ask if your main goal would be to create content *in* Anglosaxon, or *about* Anglosaxon (that can be in the same langue too but that's not the point). In other words, do you plan to have at some points articles about computer science, biology, space travel, modern history, etc. written in Anglosaxon, or is your plan to focus on litterary/linguistic topics related with the langue? In the second case, maybe wikibook with a small encyclopedia-like section for those topics would be a better idea.
James R. Johnson wrote:
May I ask why Klingon, and Esperanto have Wikis?
Esperanto is a living language that a lot of people use to communicate and share knowledge on all sort of topics.
As far as I know Klingon and Anglosaxon are only used by a very small community, and not for normal everyday communication, not to share knowledge in all sort of topics, but rather to communicate and share knowledge on some topics only, very related to the langue itself.
So, indeed, I think that, for exactly the same reasons as I exposed above, Klingon should maybe have been on wikibook rather than on wikipedia.
wikibook and wikipedia are, technically, exactly the same (it's exactly the same software used); however, on wikipedia you can expect to have some sort of symetry between the languages, on the long time tending to a similar content (detailed data on a majority of topics), only in different languages. As I doubt that languages not used for normal everyday communication nor normal knowledge transmission would ever get very developped wikipedias, those will look "incomplete" in comparaison with others.
On the other hand, a wikibook site is more or less independent of other wikibooks, its content doesn't reflect nor has to reflect nor is expected to reflect the content of wikibooks in other languages; and so can be shaped and target the content and topics best suited to the culture vehiculated by the language.
objection to your plan. Unless there's some reason to think that it's a bad idea (Klingon, for example, was and is controversial), then if people want to do it, they should do it. "I would enjoy working on it" is a perfectly valid reason.
But I think some people may request a wikipedia because they don't know ther would be a possibility to have a similar functionality without the burden of the requirement to build an encyclopedic general purpose content.
The goal *is* to create content in Anglo-Saxon. Sorry if I wasn't clear.
James
-----Original Message----- From: wikipedia-l-bounces@Wikimedia.org [mailto:wikipedia-l-bounces@Wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Pablo Saratxaga Sent: Thursday, August 05, 2004 3:24 PM To: wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Re: FW: Wikipedia for Old English
Kaixo!
On Thu, Aug 05, 2004 at 01:19:44PM -0400, James R. Johnson wrote:
OE is still active as a language, with new works being writteneven now, and translation projects going for the Bible, Shakespeare, and other works of literature.
But consider that wikipedia goal is not to be a compialtion of litterary and translation works (wikibook, on the other hand, is), but a medium to serve information on all (or at least a wide range) of topics, in a given language.
Transposed to classroom analogy, wikipedia is not a class given in English about Anglosaxon culture, but it is mathematics, physics, biology etc classes teached in Anglosaxon language.
You should ask if your main goal would be to create content *in* Anglosaxon, or *about* Anglosaxon (that can be in the same langue too but that's not the point). In other words, do you plan to have at some points articles about computer science, biology, space travel, modern history, etc. written in Anglosaxon, or is your plan to focus on litterary/linguistic topics related with the langue? In the second case, maybe wikibook with a small encyclopedia-like section for those topics would be a better idea.
James R. Johnson wrote:
May I ask why Klingon, and Esperanto have Wikis?
Esperanto is a living language that a lot of people use to communicate and share knowledge on all sort of topics.
As far as I know Klingon and Anglosaxon are only used by a very small community, and not for normal everyday communication, not to share knowledge in all sort of topics, but rather to communicate and share knowledge on some topics only, very related to the langue itself.
So, indeed, I think that, for exactly the same reasons as I exposed above, Klingon should maybe have been on wikibook rather than on wikipedia.
wikibook and wikipedia are, technically, exactly the same (it's exactly the same software used); however, on wikipedia you can expect to have some sort of symetry between the languages, on the long time tending to a similar content (detailed data on a majority of topics), only in different languages. As I doubt that languages not used for normal everyday communication nor normal knowledge transmission would ever get very developped wikipedias, those will look "incomplete" in comparaison with others.
On the other hand, a wikibook site is more or less independent of other wikibooks, its content doesn't reflect nor has to reflect nor is expected to reflect the content of wikibooks in other languages; and so can be shaped and target the content and topics best suited to the culture vehiculated by the language.
objection to your plan. Unless there's some reason to think that it's a bad idea (Klingon, for example, was and is controversial), then if people want to do it, they should do it. "I would enjoy working on it" is a perfectly valid reason.
But I think some people may request a wikipedia because they don't know ther would be a possibility to have a similar functionality without the burden of the requirement to build an encyclopedic general purpose content.
-- Ki ça vos våye bén, Pablo Saratxaga
http://chanae.walon.org/pablo/ PGP Key available, key ID: 0xD9B85466 [you can write me in Walloon, Spanish, French, English, Catalan or Esperanto] [min povas skribi en valona, esperanta, angla aux latinidaj lingvoj]
On Thu, Aug 05, 2004 at 07:16:32PM -0400, James R. Johnson wrote:
The goal *is* to create content in Anglo-Saxon. Sorry if I wasn't clear.
Out of curiousity, and due to the lack of information in [[Anglo-Saxons]] and [[Old English language]] (*hint* *hint*): how large is the speaker base of the language, are there any native speakers?
I wonder who is the target of this encyclopedia. Don't take me wrong: I am not against it, just wonder whether it going to be write-only or not. :)
[Sometimes I wonder who wants to read about, say, voting systems or the Vietnam war in Latin. :) But it's surely fun to write. :-)]
peter
ps: <wicked>what is the anglo-saxon phrase for microwave radio transmitter? ;-> </wicked>
On Thursday 05 August 2004 10:48, Karl Eichwalder wrote:
"James R. Johnson" modean52@comcast.net writes:
I guess it's like Latin in being a dead language, but just as deserving of a Wiki.
Encyclopedia writer should try to get the facts right before posting. Latin is still in use (and it was never dead). And, more important, Latin something like a sleeping lingua franca.
"Dead" referring to a language means "having no native speakers". Unlike Manx, which died with its last native speaker (but is still in use), Latin died (but remained in use) when its descendants differentiated sufficiently that none of them was Latin, which can't be pinpointed as precisely.
phma
James R. Johnson wrote:
Sorry - there have been about 6 million speakers at the height of usage of Old English. I guess it's like Latin in being a dead language, but just as deserving of a Wiki.
I am strongly in favour of a Wikipedia in the language that has the ISO code 'ang' -- but *PLEASE DO NOT* call it "Old English". Call it "Anglo-Saxon". Please. Seriously. That's very important.
If you call it "Old English", people will constantly attempt to write articles in Shakespearean, which is early Modern English.
Timwi
Anglo-Saxon. You got it. On an ang/wikipedia.org, would it be alright to use the lanugage's own name for itself? (Englisc)
James
-----Original Message----- From: wikipedia-l-bounces@Wikimedia.org [mailto:wikipedia-l-bounces@Wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Timwi Sent: Thursday, August 05, 2004 1:41 PM To: wikipedia-l@wikipedia.org Subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: FW: Wikipedia for Old English
James R. Johnson wrote:
Sorry - there have been about 6 million speakers at the height of usage of Old English. I guess it's like Latin in being a dead language, but just as deserving of a Wiki.
I am strongly in favour of a Wikipedia in the language that has the ISO code 'ang' -- but *PLEASE DO NOT* call it "Old English". Call it "Anglo-Saxon". Please. Seriously. That's very important.
If you call it "Old English", people will constantly attempt to write articles in Shakespearean, which is early Modern English.
Timwi
_______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
In fact it would be required (the Germans say "Deutsch" on their WP, not "German").
I'm eagerly anticipating the article on web browsers ("the knowledge sea-soarers").
Stan
James R. Johnson wrote:
Anglo-Saxon. You got it. On an ang/wikipedia.org, would it be alright to use the lanugage's own name for itself? (Englisc)
James
-----Original Message----- From: wikipedia-l-bounces@Wikimedia.org [mailto:wikipedia-l-bounces@Wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Timwi Sent: Thursday, August 05, 2004 1:41 PM To: wikipedia-l@wikipedia.org Subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: FW: Wikipedia for Old English
James R. Johnson wrote:
Sorry - there have been about 6 million speakers at the height of usage of Old English. I guess it's like Latin in being a dead language, but just as deserving of a Wiki.
I am strongly in favour of a Wikipedia in the language that has the ISO code 'ang' -- but *PLEASE DO NOT* call it "Old English". Call it "Anglo-Saxon". Please. Seriously. That's very important.
If you call it "Old English", people will constantly attempt to write articles in Shakespearean, which is early Modern English.
Timwi
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Pierre Abbat wrote:
On Thursday 05 August 2004 14:20, Stan Shebs wrote:
In fact it would be required (the Germans say "Deutsch" on their WP, not "German").
So what is Modern English called in Anglo-Saxon?
"Sir Not-appearing-in-this-encyclopedia", of course.
:-)
But seriously, "andwearde Englisc" is probably closest, going by the online translator at http://forrest.cx/projects/oe-dict/ . There is a lot of OE/AS material on the net!
Stan
Timwi wrote:
James R. Johnson wrote:
Sorry - there have been about 6 million speakers at the height of usage of Old English. I guess it's like Latin in being a dead language, but just as deserving of a Wiki.
I am strongly in favour of a Wikipedia in the language that has the ISO code 'ang' -- but *PLEASE DO NOT* call it "Old English". Call it "Anglo-Saxon". Please. Seriously. That's very important.
If you call it "Old English", people will constantly attempt to write articles in Shakespearean, which is early Modern English.
Even Chaucer is only Middle English.
Ec
On Wed, 4 Aug 2004 23:38:11 -0400 "James R. Johnson" modean52@comcast.net wrote:
Sorry - there have been about 6 million speakers at the height of usage of Old English. I guess it's like Latin in being a dead language, but just as deserving of a Wiki.
I disagree. Latin is still being used at least in the Catholic church if not elsewhere. Old English on the other hand is not being actively used nowadays, knowledge of it being used passively (reading existing older texts) rather than actively (writing material). I am willing to hear arguments in favor, but "it's like Latin" is not one of them.
Andre Engels
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org