"Timwi" <timwi(a)gmx.net> schrieb:
Erik Moeller wrote:
like this is an impasse only for you Erik. From
These guidelines were written in 2001
Irrelevant. They have not been abolished, therefore they are in effect.
Read the exact text.
It does NOT say, "A language that has 5 to 10 people should be created."
It does ALSO NOT say, "A language without 5 to 10 people should not be
It JUST says, "IF you start a language, try to get 5 to 10 people."
It MIGHT also say, "IF you don't have 5 to 10 people, reconsider whether you
want to create the language."
Given that these guidelines do not say anything, or at least do not say much,
about which languages should or should not be created, their relevance in this
debate is trivial at best. These are not guidelines on what languages we do or
do not want. These are guidelines on how to best set up a language.
Rubbish. It is perfectly fair and correct. Other than
distinction, there is no intrinsic difference between a natural language
and a constructed language other than being natural and constructed,
respectively. You seem to be assuming that constructed languages have
some sort of lesser status or little validity. Stop thinking that. It's
It's not. A language is in the first place a means of communication, and
a Wikipedia is in the first place a means of distributing knowledge.
Something is clearly won by getting an article that exists in one
language in another language as well (or a different article on the
same subject) - it provides the information for those who speak the
second language while not speaking or being less fluent in the first.
I'm not convinced that the same holds for a language to Klingon. Is
there really interest in people to get their information in Klingon?
Or is it just there for fun, because one wants to write or read
'something' rather than something specific in Klingon?