Hoi,
Please understand that I raise a technical point that does not in any way
prevent projects to be started. It does prevent the unfortunate creation of
a project like
where als in ISO-639-3 is Albanian, the
main language .. Fortunately, on WiktionaryZ we have already reached
agreement that the als code can be replaced for Schwyzerdütsch (gsw). When
this is a good solution for the als.wikipedia folks, this would help a lot.
Please let me know what is problematic with my view point. The fact that
this is not yet shared does not negate the merit of the point of view.
Thanks,
GerardM <http://wiktionaryz.org/Portal:gsw>
On 10/18/06, Mark Williamson <node.ue(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I disagree with your advocacy.
You have extreme viewpoints not shared by most members of the
community. For this reason, I worry that your membership on the board
languages subcommittee may unduly influence the creation of Wikis in
new languages in a direction to which the community would not agree.
Mark
On 17/10/06, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Hoi,
I do advocate to not include a language under a code that is
incompatible with the terms of use of the ISO-639. This does only mean
that a code needs to be picked that is *clearly *outside ISO-639, this
can be accomplished by picking a four character code. I also advocate to
follow the ISO-639 and not deviate from it's content. There are well
established ways in which you can inform about dialects scripts etc. I
do advocate to use these established ways.
My point is that when people want recognition for the language that they
speak and write as a language, they have to jump through the hoops that
are there to jump through. In the mean time there can be a code that
allows them to work on a WMF project. However, what I am not saying is
that any "language" deserves it's own project. There have already been
two languages that have been deleted because of popular demand.
Thanks,
GerardM
ScottL wrote:
> Are you advocating dis-including a language because it does not
have
> an acceptable abbreviation? Or are you
maintaining that it is not
> actually a language?
>
> If the first, then I suspect that is not a good reason to disallow
a
> new wikipedia to be formed.
>
> If the second, then we are still "'recognize[ing]' what some
> activists believe". Though an appeal to the processes of an external
> body as part of our process does seem to mitigate that somewhat though
I
> think that is questionable in terms of our
principals.
>
> SKL
>
> GerardM wrote:
>
>> Hoi,
>> In the past many things have been done that we should regret. We have
on
the
>> one hand Brion who insists that we
maintain the RFC to do with
indicating
>> content, on the other hand I advocate to
use the ISO-639-3 standard
and
>> engage in the process to get adequate
resolution on what is to be
considered
>> a language. Then there are people who
consider that it does not make
a
>> difference and that we can do as we
like.
>>
>> Yes, we have several codes that are wrong. Codes that are contrary to
the
>> terms of use of the ISO-639 code. The
fact that we have done these
things
>> does not sanction that we continue to do
so.
>>
>> When Samogitian gets the zog code, it means that we should be able to
use
>> that code. From an RFC point of view it
seems that we are not allowed
to do
>> this. This is as foolhardy as insisting
on using codes that are
patently
>> wrong and incompatible with what is done
in the rest of the world.
>>
>> ISO is working on codes where dialects are given an official code.
When
this
>> happens the position of these codes will
become even more untenable.
It is
>> to be prefered to accept the best codes
that comply with current
practices
>> and work on amending the practices where
needed.
>>
>> The difference between a language and a dialect is often a
problematic
one.
>> Issues are often highly politicized. It
is absolutely wrong to
"recognize"
>> what some activists believe for reasons
that have nothing to do with
>> linguistics. Engaging in the process to get the recognition through
ISO
and
>> Ethnologue is open to us, let us go that
route.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> GerardM
>>
>> On 10/17/06, Mark Williamson <node.ue(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Arns has a really good point. This is based on precedent.
>>>
>>> While we do try to follow certain conventions where possible, we do
>>> have some inconsistencies with standards. But we're not ISOpedia.
>>> Whether we conform to standards or not is our own choice.
>>>
>>> In the past, we have generally had codes in the form of fiu-vro,
>>> bat-smg, and map-bms.
>>>
>>> This is despite the fact that Võro, Samogitian, and Banyumasan are
>>> considered by the Ethnologue (and many others) to be dialects of
>>> Estonian, Lithuanian, and Javanese respectively.
>>>
>>> We are not perfect.
>>>
>>> Mark
>>>
>>> On 17/10/06, Zordsdavini iz Litvy <zordsdavini(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Latgalian is going in the same way as Samogitian. Soon Samogitian
will
>>>>
>>> have
>>>
>>>> iso. It will be ZOG. For now it use bat-smg. The latgalian will
have
>>>>
>>> iso,
>>>
>>>> too, I hope because Latgalian have more tradition than Samogitian.
When
>>>> Samogitian wiki was starting we
decided to use bat-smg. I think the
best
>>>> code for now is bat-ltg. To
write about dictionary differences can
>>>>
>>> proposer.
>>>
>>>> I'll tell him.
>>>>
>>>> Arns
>>>>
>>>> 2006/10/17, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com>om>:
>>>>
>>>>> Hoi,
>>>>> There are two issues.
>>>>> * What/ is/ the code for the moment
>>>>> * Get recognition for Latgalian as a language.
>>>>>
>>>>> People have considered languages like Min-Nan and Yue as a dialect
of
>>>>> Chinese for a long time.
They HAD to use codes like zh-min-nan
because
>>>>> this was necessary to comply
with the standards. At this moment we
>>>>>
>>> have
>>>
>>>>> 7602 languages that are recognised in ISO-639-3. This is a big
>>>>> improvement over what was in ISO-639-2. The ISO-639-3 codes will
>>>>>
>>> become
>>>
>>>>> part of how languages are seen in the near future on the Internet.
I
>>>>>
>>> am
>>>
>>>>> afraid that Latgalian is at this moment considered a dialect of
>>>>>
>>> Latvian.
>>>
>>>>> I am also sure that there are many other
"languages/dialects" that
are
>>>>> in a similar situation.
Either because people are afronted because
>>>>>
>>> what
>>>
>>>>> it considers a language they consider a dialect or the other way
>>>>>
>>> around.
>>>
>>>>> There are also many people who consider something a dialect of for
>>>>> instance Italian while everybody knows that Italian was
constructed
>>>>> after the unification of
Italy and, that Italian is based on
>>>>>
>>> Florentine.
>>>
>>>>> The point I am making here there is a lot of confusion and there
is a
>>>>> lot of posturing based on
bad information. Having to base the code
for
>>>>> Latgalian on Latvian is the
best for the moment.
>>>>>
>>>>> When you consider Latgalian a language, there are processes open
to us
>>>>> to have this considered by
organisations like Ethnologue and ISO.
We
>>>>> have contacts that may help
us achieve this. In order to get to
that
>>>>> stage, it is necessary to
jump through certain hoops. One of these
is
>>>>>
>>> to
>>>
>>>>> demonstrate that there is indeed this difference that warrants
>>>>>
>>> Latgalian
>>>
>>>>> to be considered a language. Aspects of this are also showing
>>>>>
>>> literature
>>>
>>>>> and current use of the language. One of the first resources would
be a
>>>>> Swadesh list where both
Latvian and Latgalian can be compared.
>>>>>
>>>>> FYI I am from an area of the Netherlands; Westfriesland where they
>>>>>
>>> used
>>>
>>>>> to speak a language; Westfries. It has a literature; it has a
grammar
>>>>>
>>> it
>>>
>>>>> is not understood by people who speak Dutch. There are dialects of
>>>>> Westfries there are dictionaries of Westfries and there are
revival
>>>>> societies that give cabaret
performances in Westfries. At some
stage I
>>>>> am sure that someone will
ask for a Wikipedia in Westfries. I
would
>>>>>
>>> not
>>>
>>>>> stop them. I KNOW that it takes relatively little effort to make
the
>>>>> case for Westfries. In
WiktionaryZ I would welcome dictionaries in
>>>>> Westfries or Latgalian... NB Westfries is not West Frisian ..
which
>>>>>
>>> imho
>>>
>>>>> is a complete misnomer.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> GerardM
>>>>>
>>>>> Zordsdavini iz Litvy wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> latgalian has long tradition of writing system. It was in
1918-1944
>>>>>>
>>>>> second
>>>>>
>>>>>> official language. Considering of dialect status is political.
And
>>>>>>
>>> there
>>>
>>>>> are
>>>>>
>>>>>> very active people which are working on latgalian language
life.
>>>>>>
>>> It's
>>>
>>>>>> dialect like neopolitanian or venecian. We say it's the
language.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Arns
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2006/10/17, GerardM <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com>om>:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hoi,
>>>>>>> The code bat is a "collective code" for Baltic
(other).
Latgalian
>>>>>>>
>>>>> however
>>>>>
>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>> considered a dialect of Latvian and therefore it is not
"other".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
http://www.ethnologue.com/show_language.asp?code=lav
>>>>>>>
http://www.sil.org/iso639-3/documentation.asp?id=bat
>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>> GerardM
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 10/17/06, Angela <beesley(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 10/17/06, GerardM <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hoi,
>>>>>>>>> According to Ethnologue Latgalian is a dialect of
Latvian.
From
>>>>>>>>>
>>> my
>>>
>>>>>>> point
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> view, there is not even a proposed code to be used
for your
>>>>>>>>>
>>> proposed
>>>
>>>>>>>>> Wikipedia that would be acceptable. Acceptable would
be
something
>>>>>>>>
>>>> like
>>>>
>>>>>>>> "lv-latg" or "lav-latg" ..
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There's a test wiki at
>>>>>>>
>>
http://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Test-wp/ltg
>>
>>>>>>> The code bat-ltv has been suggested.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Angela
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
Wikipedia-l(a)Wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
--
Refije dirije lanmè yo paske nou posede pwòp bato.
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
Wikipedia-l(a)Wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l