I'd like to be responsible for the creation of a wikipediaversion in gothic.
Full name: gothic
Language code: got
Number of speakers: 0
Number of people which has knowledge about gothic: at least 400, probably much more.
_________________________________________________________________ Auktioner: Tjäna en hacka på gamla prylar http://tradera.msn.se
Fredrik Adevåg wrote:
I'd like to be responsible for the creation of a wikipediaversion in gothic.
Full name: gothic
Language code: got
Number of speakers: 0
Number of people which has knowledge about gothic: at least 400, probably much more.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gothic_language
I offer this only as background for those who may wish to research and think about this.
--Jimbo
Hi Fredrik,
Your proposal for a Gothic wikipedia is very exciting!
I have a question though, will you be using Unicode gothic, or will you be writing it in the Latin alphabet? Also, will you be using spaces between words or not?
Also I think that the number of people who can "speak" gothic is actually higher than most would estimate, there are people who learn Gothic because they are obsessed with it, there are people who learn it because it is useful for Germanic or even general Indo-European linguistics, and there are people who learn it for various other reasons; however I seem to recall having heard about a group of university professors who are raising their kids in Gothic, together their organization has 400 individuals worldwide I think, which only includes academics whose primary interest is in Gothic (as opposed to people whose primary interest is in, say, Old Icelandic, but speak Gothic as well).
I have seen estimates as high as 2000 (well, one crackpot had a theory about there being isolated communities in the Alps and the Balkans and such that still spoke Gothic and his estimate was 1 million, but that's very crazy and there's no evidence to back it up), but nothing lower than 400.
Especially since it has a movement to pass it on to children I think it's a good idea to have a Wikipedia in Gothic.
Also I feel that as long as it isn't a conlang, it doesn't matter how many speakers there are as long as there are people interested in writing an encyclopedia.
Best, Mark/Jin Junshu
On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 10:18:09 +0000, Fredrik Adevåg gadrauhts@hotmail.com wrote:
I'd like to be responsible for the creation of a wikipediaversion in gothic.
Full name: gothic
Language code: got
Number of speakers: 0
Number of people which has knowledge about gothic: at least 400, probably much more.
Auktioner: Tjäna en hacka på gamla prylar http://tradera.msn.se
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 10:18:09 +0000 Fredrik Adevåg gadrauhts@hotmail.com wrote:
I'd like to be responsible for the creation of a wikipediaversion in gothic.
Full name: gothic
Language code: got
Number of speakers: 0
Number of people which has knowledge about gothic: at least 400, probably much more.
I still am very wary about putting Wikipedia in dead languages. Reason is that in my opinion the first function of Wikipedia is to bring over the information content in the articles; the language, in my opinion, is just a means to do this, it should not be a goal in its own. Because, as far as I can see, nobody would _prefer_ to have Gothic as the language in which s/he gets this information, I don't think having a Gothic Wikipedia aids in this goal (and yes, there are languages in which Wikipedia already exists with which I have the same objections).
My doubts would be much lessened if you could give me evidence that the language is actually used - in the sense of being written/spoken rather than just read. I would like to ask this:
Can you specify a body of literature written in Gothic, from recent date (say, after World War II)?
Andre Engels
I think that if there are people who speak the language, even if in a merely academic context, a Wikipedia is worthwhile. What about the Latin Wikipedia?
On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 12:08:02 +0200, Andre Engels andrewiki@freemail.nl wrote:
On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 10:18:09 +0000 Fredrik Adevåg gadrauhts@hotmail.com wrote:
I'd like to be responsible for the creation of a wikipediaversion in gothic.
Full name: gothic
Language code: got
Number of speakers: 0
Number of people which has knowledge about gothic: at least 400, probably much more.
I still am very wary about putting Wikipedia in dead languages. Reason is that in my opinion the first function of Wikipedia is to bring over the information content in the articles; the language, in my opinion, is just a means to do this, it should not be a goal in its own. Because, as far as I can see, nobody would _prefer_ to have Gothic as the language in which s/he gets this information, I don't think having a Gothic Wikipedia aids in this goal (and yes, there are languages in which Wikipedia already exists with which I have the same objections).
My doubts would be much lessened if you could give me evidence that the language is actually used - in the sense of being written/spoken rather than just read. I would like to ask this:
Can you specify a body of literature written in Gothic, from recent date (say, after World War II)?
Andre Engels
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Andre wrote:
I think that if there are people who speak the language, even if in a merely academic context, a Wikipedia is worthwhile. What about the Latin Wikipedia?
On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 12:08:02 +0200, Andre Engels andrewiki@freemail.nl wrote:
On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 10:18:09 +0000 Fredrik Adevåg gadrauhts@hotmail.com wrote:
I'd like to be responsible for the creation of a wikipediaversion in gothic.
Full name: gothic
Language code: got
Number of speakers: 0
Number of people which has knowledge about gothic: at least 400, probably much more.
I still am very wary about putting Wikipedia in dead languages. Reason is that in my opinion the first function of Wikipedia is to bring over the information content in the articles; the language, in my opinion, is just a means to do this, it should not be a goal in its own. Because, as far as I can see, nobody would _prefer_ to have Gothic as the language in which s/he gets this information, I don't think having a Gothic Wikipedia aids in this goal (and yes, there are languages in which Wikipedia already exists with which I have the same objections).
My doubts would be much lessened if you could give me evidence that the language is actually used - in the sense of being written/spoken rather than just read. I would like to ask this:
Can you specify a body of literature written in Gothic, from recent date (say, after World War II)?
Andre Engels
Latin is still spoken; it is one of the official languages of the Vatican. Thanks, GerardM
I know plenty of people *can* speak/write Gothic, I just don't know that they *do*.
However the movement to bring Gothic back to life as a language with native speakers, which I mentioned before, will undoubtedly result in quite a few children who will in the future want to read encyclopedias in Gothic as their preferred language.
Best, Mark/Jin Junshu
On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 12:08:02 +0200, Andre Engels andrewiki@freemail.nl wrote:
On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 10:18:09 +0000 Fredrik Adevåg gadrauhts@hotmail.com wrote:
I'd like to be responsible for the creation of a wikipediaversion in gothic.
Full name: gothic
Language code: got
Number of speakers: 0
Number of people which has knowledge about gothic: at least 400, probably much more.
I still am very wary about putting Wikipedia in dead languages. Reason is that in my opinion the first function of Wikipedia is to bring over the information content in the articles; the language, in my opinion, is just a means to do this, it should not be a goal in its own. Because, as far as I can see, nobody would _prefer_ to have Gothic as the language in which s/he gets this information, I don't think having a Gothic Wikipedia aids in this goal (and yes, there are languages in which Wikipedia already exists with which I have the same objections).
My doubts would be much lessened if you could give me evidence that the language is actually used - in the sense of being written/spoken rather than just read. I would like to ask this:
Can you specify a body of literature written in Gothic, from recent date (say, after World War II)?
Andre Engels
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Actually, if history is any indication, the effort will go nowhere, the language will stay dead, and a Gothic Wikipedia will be nothing more than a curiosity. Then again, we have a Klingon one.
-Snowspinner
On Sep 16, 2004, at 10:59 PM, Mark Williamson wrote:
I know plenty of people *can* speak/write Gothic, I just don't know that they *do*.
However the movement to bring Gothic back to life as a language with native speakers, which I mentioned before, will undoubtedly result in quite a few children who will in the future want to read encyclopedias in Gothic as their preferred language.
Best, Mark/Jin Junshu
On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 12:08:02 +0200, Andre Engels andrewiki@freemail.nl wrote:
On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 10:18:09 +0000 Fredrik Adevåg gadrauhts@hotmail.com wrote:
I'd like to be responsible for the creation of a wikipediaversion in gothic.
Full name: gothic
Language code: got
Number of speakers: 0
Number of people which has knowledge about gothic: at least 400, probably much more.
I still am very wary about putting Wikipedia in dead languages. Reason is that in my opinion the first function of Wikipedia is to bring over the information content in the articles; the language, in my opinion, is just a means to do this, it should not be a goal in its own. Because, as far as I can see, nobody would _prefer_ to have Gothic as the language in which s/he gets this information, I don't think having a Gothic Wikipedia aids in this goal (and yes, there are languages in which Wikipedia already exists with which I have the same objections).
My doubts would be much lessened if you could give me evidence that the language is actually used - in the sense of being written/spoken rather than just read. I would like to ask this:
Can you specify a body of literature written in Gothic, from recent date (say, after World War II)?
Andre Engels
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
Uhh... what about Hebrew? Manchu? Manx? Cornish? Since when do languages not revive successfully by teaching them to children?
--node
On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 00:00:11 -0500, Phil Sandifer sandifer@sbcglobal.net wrote:
Actually, if history is any indication, the effort will go nowhere, the language will stay dead, and a Gothic Wikipedia will be nothing more than a curiosity. Then again, we have a Klingon one.
-Snowspinner
On Sep 16, 2004, at 10:59 PM, Mark Williamson wrote:
I know plenty of people *can* speak/write Gothic, I just don't know that they *do*.
However the movement to bring Gothic back to life as a language with native speakers, which I mentioned before, will undoubtedly result in quite a few children who will in the future want to read encyclopedias in Gothic as their preferred language.
Best, Mark/Jin Junshu
On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 12:08:02 +0200, Andre Engels andrewiki@freemail.nl wrote:
On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 10:18:09 +0000 Fredrik Adevåg gadrauhts@hotmail.com wrote:
I'd like to be responsible for the creation of a wikipediaversion in gothic.
Full name: gothic
Language code: got
Number of speakers: 0
Number of people which has knowledge about gothic: at least 400, probably much more.
I still am very wary about putting Wikipedia in dead languages. Reason is that in my opinion the first function of Wikipedia is to bring over the information content in the articles; the language, in my opinion, is just a means to do this, it should not be a goal in its own. Because, as far as I can see, nobody would _prefer_ to have Gothic as the language in which s/he gets this information, I don't think having a Gothic Wikipedia aids in this goal (and yes, there are languages in which Wikipedia already exists with which I have the same objections).
My doubts would be much lessened if you could give me evidence that the language is actually used - in the sense of being written/spoken rather than just read. I would like to ask this:
Can you specify a body of literature written in Gothic, from recent date (say, after World War II)?
Andre Engels
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
Mark Williamson wrote:
Uhh... what about Hebrew? Manchu? Manx? Cornish? Since when do languages not revive successfully by teaching them to children?
They revive successfully by teaching them to children as a daily-use language. Is Wikipedia related to that? I suppose it could be in some ways, but I can't seriously see people using the Gothic Wikipedia as a source of general encyclopedia-type information. If you want to know some random fact (say, the biography of Charlemagne), why would anyone look for it in a Gothic-language encyclopedia?
-Mark
On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 15:21:39 -0400, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
Mark Williamson wrote:
Uhh... what about Hebrew? Manchu? Manx? Cornish? Since when do languages not revive successfully by teaching them to children?
They revive successfully by teaching them to children as a daily-use language. Is Wikipedia related to that? I suppose it could be in some ways, but I can't seriously see people using the Gothic Wikipedia as a source of general encyclopedia-type information. If you want to know
There is a Rosetta Project which focuses on cataloguing texts in all the world's languages. Unfortunately, it has been developing very slowly and has had trouble generating a community around its efforts, because there is no direction to its content, beyond an effort to translate basic word lists into all languages. Wikipedia provides both a forum and a direction for building a corpus in a dying or marginal language.
This isn't to demean the rosetta project in any way; they already have content in thousands of languages, and a million dollar grant from the US government to continue their work. But I think one of Wikipedia's important side-effects is its potential to preserve (and store useful, even self-bootstrapping, content in) disappearing languages.
Sj wrote:
This isn't to demean the rosetta project in any way; they already have content in thousands of languages, and a million dollar grant from the US government to continue their work. But I think one of Wikipedia's important side-effects is its potential to preserve (and store useful, even self-bootstrapping, content in) disappearing languages.
Well, if the goal is to preserve ancient texts in the language, I could see wikisource as being a better location. To have a viable Wikipedia, there needs to be an interest in using it as a living language, one in which you would write about everyday topics in. I can see this for some recently-revived languages---people might be interested in there being a Cornish Wikipedia their children can look up information in. But is anyone going to look up anything in a Gothic encyclopedia? Will there be articles on global warming written in Gothic? etc.
-Mark
On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 16:31:54 -0400, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
Well, if the goal is to preserve ancient texts in the language, I could see wikisource as being a better location. To have a viable Wikipedia, there needs to be an interest in using it as a living language, one in
I'm not sure we currently have a better way than a "Wikipedia" instance for people to build a new corpus in a language they are trying to preserve. Wikisource is for existing source documents...
Sj
Sj wrote:
On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 16:31:54 -0400, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
Well, if the goal is to preserve ancient texts in the language, I could see wikisource as being a better location. To have a viable Wikipedia, there needs to be an interest in using it as a living language, one in
I'm not sure we currently have a better way than a "Wikipedia" instance for people to build a new corpus in a language they are trying to preserve. Wikisource is for existing source documents...
I think there is a general consensus on Wikisource that is similar to the one in Wikipedia. It's not the place for the first publication of original research. Perhaps the only exception to that has been in the Source code section, and I admit that I often wonder whether it would be better placed in Wikibooks. Perhaps the problem here is that tech people tend to use the word "source" in a different way from the rest of us. It would be interesting to haver comments from Wikibooks people on how they consider the treatment of source code.
Annotations and translations of texts are certainly welcome on Wikisource, but I don't think that that particular feature can really take off in the absence of synchronized side-by-side edit boxes.
Ec
Why would anyone look for that same article in the Latin-language encyclopedia, or an Esperanto-language encyclopedia?
James
-----Original Message----- From: wikipedia-l-bounces@Wikimedia.org [mailto:wikipedia-l-bounces@Wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Delirium Sent: Friday, September 17, 2004 3:22 PM To: wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] A proposal for a new language in wikipedia
Mark Williamson wrote:
Uhh... what about Hebrew? Manchu? Manx? Cornish? Since when do languages not revive successfully by teaching them to children?
They revive successfully by teaching them to children as a daily-use language. Is Wikipedia related to that? I suppose it could be in some ways, but I can't seriously see people using the Gothic Wikipedia as a source of general encyclopedia-type information. If you want to know some random fact (say, the biography of Charlemagne), why would anyone look for it in a Gothic-language encyclopedia?
-Mark
_______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Latin? No idea. Esperanto? The same reason you'd look it up in English, except chances are Esperanto is not their first language, and there's a good chance the same information is available in whatever their native language actually *is*.
--node
On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 22:26:48 -0400, James R. Johnson modean52@comcast.net wrote:
Why would anyone look for that same article in the Latin-language encyclopedia, or an Esperanto-language encyclopedia?
James
-----Original Message----- From: wikipedia-l-bounces@Wikimedia.org [mailto:wikipedia-l-bounces@Wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Delirium Sent: Friday, September 17, 2004 3:22 PM To: wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] A proposal for a new language in wikipedia
Mark Williamson wrote:
Uhh... what about Hebrew? Manchu? Manx? Cornish? Since when do languages not revive successfully by teaching them to children?
They revive successfully by teaching them to children as a daily-use language. Is Wikipedia related to that? I suppose it could be in some ways, but I can't seriously see people using the Gothic Wikipedia as a source of general encyclopedia-type information. If you want to know some random fact (say, the biography of Charlemagne), why would anyone look for it in a Gothic-language encyclopedia?
-Mark
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
I can't say anything about Gothic lit after WW2, except for: http://www.stormloader.com/carver/gutrazda/bagmebloma.html http://www.stormloader.com/carver/gutrazda/ringpoem.html
and a few more on http://www.stormloader.com/carver/gutrazda/index.html
I can understand the hesitation with dead languages, especially Gothic, with such a limited vocabulary as it has, but other languages, such as Latin, Old Norse, and Old English/Anglo-Saxon should definitely have wikipedias, as they have quite a large corpus of material written in their languages, have large vocabularies, and have large numbers of people who learn them, write in them, and speak them. Just check out these sites on Old English: http://www.buckrogers.demon.co.uk/nasc.htm and http://home.comcast.net/~modean52 and http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Academy/4506/ and http://www.kami.demon.co.uk/gesithas/index.html
Old Norse: http://www.hi.is/~haukurth/norse/ and http://hem.passagen.se/peter9/gram/index.html and http://www.snerpa.is/net/isl/isl.htm
I can list at least 20 to 30 more sites between the two languages. Material is being written both in Old Norse and Old English nowadays, and there are mailing lists for both languages, with communities willing to support wikipedias in both languages. I myself would contribute to both languages' wikipedias, and a Gothic one as well, if it were created. Could the requestor please list some sites or material he has available to him, as I'm simply curious about the ability of Gothic to adequately describe modern concepts and events.
James
-----Original Message----- From: wikipedia-l-bounces@Wikimedia.org [mailto:wikipedia-l-bounces@Wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Andre Engels Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2004 6:08 AM To: wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] A proposal for a new language in wikipedia
On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 10:18:09 +0000 Fredrik Adevåg gadrauhts@hotmail.com wrote:
I'd like to be responsible for the creation of a wikipediaversion in gothic.
Full name: gothic
Language code: got
Number of speakers: 0
Number of people which has knowledge about gothic: at least 400, probably much more.
I still am very wary about putting Wikipedia in dead languages. Reason is that in my opinion the first function of Wikipedia is to bring over the information content in the articles; the language, in my opinion, is just a means to do this, it should not be a goal in its own. Because, as far as I can see, nobody would _prefer_ to have Gothic as the language in which s/he gets this information, I don't think having a Gothic Wikipedia aids in this goal (and yes, there are languages in which Wikipedia already exists with which I have the same objections).
My doubts would be much lessened if you could give me evidence that the language is actually used - in the sense of being written/spoken rather than
just read. I would like to ask this:
Can you specify a body of literature written in Gothic, from recent date (say, after World War II)?
Andre Engels _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Would you be writing in the Gothic script or Latin? I think it'd be more sensible to do it in the Gothic script, since it's designed for the language moreso than the Latin script.
Do you have any modern (in the last 15-20 years) texts written in Gothic (language and/or script)? Can you either attach them or provide an URL for them?
James
-----Original Message----- From: wikipedia-l-bounces@Wikimedia.org [mailto:wikipedia-l-bounces@Wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Fredrik Adevåg Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2004 6:18 AM To: wikipedia-l@wikimedia.org Subject: [Wikipedia-l] A proposal for a new language in wikipedia
I'd like to be responsible for the creation of a wikipediaversion in gothic.
Full name: gothic
Language code: got
Number of speakers: 0
Number of people which has knowledge about gothic: at least 400, probably much more.
_________________________________________________________________ Auktioner: Tjäna en hacka på gamla prylar http://tradera.msn.se
_______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
On Sep 17, 2004, at 10:41 PM, James R. Johnson wrote:
Would you be writing in the Gothic script or Latin?
http://www.wulfila.be/gothic/gotica/
There are no recent Gothic texts, though there are critical editions of fragments that exist which are of recent origin.
I'm not taking sides on the issue, but I am dubious that the scholars who are involved in the study of the Gothic language would be interested, or would put in any time. I think there is more likelihood of there being a native Klingon speaker in the next 10 years than a native Gothic speaker.
Apparently you have not been reading a single word I have said, because I have said already that there are already kids being raised in Gothic, yet to the best of my knowledge one couple claimed to be raising their child(ren?) in Klingon but it turned out they weren't or something.
--node
On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 23:00:49 -0400, Stirling Newberry stirling.newberry@xigenics.net wrote:
On Sep 17, 2004, at 10:41 PM, James R. Johnson wrote:
Would you be writing in the Gothic script or Latin?
http://www.wulfila.be/gothic/gotica/
There are no recent Gothic texts, though there are critical editions of fragments that exist which are of recent origin.
I'm not taking sides on the issue, but I am dubious that the scholars who are involved in the study of the Gothic language would be interested, or would put in any time. I think there is more likelihood of there being a native Klingon speaker in the next 10 years than a native Gothic speaker.
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Mark Williamson wrote:
Apparently you have not been reading a single word I have said, because I have said already that there are already kids being raised in Gothic, yet to the best of my knowledge one couple claimed to be raising their child(ren?) in Klingon but it turned out they weren't or something.
That sounds like a great way to raise disfunctional kids. :-(
Ec
Klingon, Gothic, or both?
--node
ps What exactly is wrong with either language as a language to raise kids in?
On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 23:59:53 -0700, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Mark Williamson wrote:
Apparently you have not been reading a single word I have said, because I have said already that there are already kids being raised in Gothic, yet to the best of my knowledge one couple claimed to be raising their child(ren?) in Klingon but it turned out they weren't or something.
That sounds like a great way to raise disfunctional kids. :-(
Ec
RS> That sounds like a great way to raise disfunctional kids. :-(
I don't think anyone is raising kids with Gothic or Klingon as the only language, but they're raising them as bilingual - with Gothic and the parents' native language.
Ray Saintonge a écrit:
Mark Williamson wrote:
Apparently you have not been reading a single word I have said, because I have said already that there are already kids being raised in Gothic, yet to the best of my knowledge one couple claimed to be raising their child(ren?) in Klingon but it turned out they weren't or something.
That sounds like a great way to raise disfunctional kids. :-(
Ec
Thanks :-) You gave me a nervous "fou rire" ;-)
There are *some* texts written recently in Gothic, however most of them are short and are either private correspondence, diaries, or poetry (I believe there is an ML as well which uses Gothic), with some of the poetry actually available on the internet.
--node
On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 22:41:44 -0400, James R. Johnson modean52@comcast.net wrote:
Would you be writing in the Gothic script or Latin? I think it'd be more sensible to do it in the Gothic script, since it's designed for the language moreso than the Latin script.
Do you have any modern (in the last 15-20 years) texts written in Gothic (language and/or script)? Can you either attach them or provide an URL for them?
James
-----Original Message----- From: wikipedia-l-bounces@Wikimedia.org [mailto:wikipedia-l-bounces@Wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Fredrik Adevåg Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2004 6:18 AM To: wikipedia-l@wikimedia.org Subject: [Wikipedia-l] A proposal for a new language in wikipedia
I'd like to be responsible for the creation of a wikipediaversion in gothic.
Full name: gothic
Language code: got
Number of speakers: 0
Number of people which has knowledge about gothic: at least 400, probably much more.
Auktioner: Tjäna en hacka på gamla prylar http://tradera.msn.se
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
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org