unsubscribe
katia gruppioni
marketing e relazioni internazionali
mail to:katia_gruppioni@siragroup.it
tel +39 0516268411
fax +39 051743866
call m.p.:+39 3356820495
-----Messaggio originale-----
Da: wiktionary-l-bounces(a)lists.wikimedia.org
[mailto:wiktionary-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] Per conto di
wiktionary-l-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Inviato: mercoledì 4 aprile 2007 16.59
A: wiktionary-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Oggetto: Wiktionary-l Digest, Vol 29, Issue 3
Send Wiktionary-l mailing list submissions to
wiktionary-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiktionary-l
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
wiktionary-l-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org
You can reach the person managing the list at
wiktionary-l-owner(a)lists.wikimedia.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Wiktionary-l digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: Klingon Wiktionary closed (Dmcdevit)
2. Re: Klingon Wiktionary closed (Oldak Quill)
3. Re: Klingon Wiktionary closed (Muke Tever)
4. Re: Klingon Wiktionary closed (Muke Tever)
5. Re: Klingon Wiktionary closed (Yann Forget)
6. Re: Klingon Wiktionary closed (Muke Tever)
7. Re: Klingon Wiktionary closed (Yann Forget)
8. Re: Klingon Wiktionary closed (Dmcdevit)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2007 17:28:24 -0700
From: Dmcdevit <dmcdevit(a)cox.net>
Subject: Re: [Wiktionary-l] Klingon Wiktionary closed
To: "The Wiktionary (
http://www.wiktionary.org) mailing list"
<wiktionary-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Message-ID: <4612F128.4060003(a)cox.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Muke Tever wrote:
On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 17:20:29 -0600, Dmcdevit
<dmcdevit(a)cox.net> wrote:
Oldak Quill wrote:
I, for one, object to the closure of projects
based on elitist
concerns as to the origin of the language. What matters is the place
of the language in the world now. This language is, crucially,
recognised as a language by the International Standardisation
Organisation
There is no sense of "recognition" in the ISO code designations.
As they
say for the 693-3 codes, "it is a goal for this part of ISO 639 to
provide an identifier for every distinct human language that has been
documented, whether living, extinct, or constructed, and whether its
modality is spoken, written or signed." There are 7,589 currently.
tlh is also in ISO 639-2 as well, whose scope is more limited, codes being
added to it "when it becomes apparent that a significant body of literature
in a particular language exists."
The full criteria are here:
http://www.loc.gov/standards/iso639-2/criteria2.html
(in brief, "that there is a significant body of literature in the language
or describing the language".)
So I repeat, your choices are either to have a
dictionary define wordsusing words it does not define (Klingon words) or to define words
(Klingonwords) that cannot be attested according to normal dictionary standards.
First off, what kind of attestation are you seeking here? There are published
reference books on the language and several translations into Klingon have been made:
Gilgamesh and a couple of Shakespeare plays are in print; online of course there's
more, such as extensive selections from the Bible (linguist Nick Nicholas has
the full text of the book of Mark on his website, among other things)... This is
as much as if not more than many minority natural languages have.
*All* natural languages have a right to be included when they meet the
requirements for starting a new language project, which is part of
Wikimedia's mission to provide the sum of all human knowledge *to every
single person*. That is a false comparison.
So, you have no original literature whatsoever, and a hodgepodge of fan
translations of famous works into this fictional alien language, and
that ought to constitute enough use? Why is it that no one seems able to
tell me how many fluent speakers there are? At least other languages
have educational uses, including cross-lingual communication, ease of
use or learning, simplification of existing languages, etc.
I agree with Oldak about "elitist concerns as to
the origin of the language".
I apologize if my concern that the Wikimedia Foundation, the charitable
organization we volunteer for, be used for significant, educational
purposes, as it is intended, appears elitist. That does not fit my
definition of elitism, however, and bandying about the term is just an
ad hominem distraction. This is the most important point. There is a
reason that the MuppetWiki (a fine project, expanding rapidly) belongs
on a non-WMF site like Wikia.
If Klingon (or any other language) is to be rejected
it should be on at least
moderately objective criteria, which would pertain to the language's present,
not its origin--the bar can be higher for a constructed language, but it should
at least be presented an opportunity to rise above its birth.
Your notion that Klingon, the language of a fictional alien race on a
popular American television show, has some kind of existence separate
from its origins is absurd. It only needs to be rejected for its
present: which is as a linguistically unimportant, functionally
nonexistent, and educationally useless language to write a dictionary in.
It seems [from what I can tell now] that the Klingon
Wikipedia was closed down not
because of any demerit in the language itself, but chiefly because it was not being
used (having 60 articles at time of closing). tlh.wiktionary, it seems, has at
least two currently-active users (its admins) and 2,311 content pages.
That is not
at all my understanding of how the Klingon Wikipedia closed.
There was widespread community opposition. All wikis start small. Worse,
I will note again that this wiki was an accidental creation without the
Board's approval, and they have already voted to close the Klingon
Wikipedia.
Dominic
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2007 02:21:08 +0100
From: "Oldak Quill" <oldakquill(a)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Wiktionary-l] Klingon Wiktionary closed
To: "The Wiktionary (
http://www.wiktionary.org) mailing list"
<wiktionary-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Message-ID:
<54f6f2050704031821j76eb5967rae17e5a9c4a882ac(a)mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
On 04/04/07, Dmcdevit <dmcdevit(a)cox.net> wrote:
Muke Tever wrote:
I agree with Oldak about "elitist concerns
as to the origin of the language".
I apologize if my concern that the Wikimedia Foundation, the charitable
organization we volunteer for, be used for significant, educational
purposes, as it is intended, appears elitist. That does not fit my
definition of elitism, however, and bandying about the term is just an
ad hominem distraction. This is the most important point. There is a
reason that the MuppetWiki (a fine project, expanding rapidly) belongs
on a non-WMF site like Wikia.
Huh? Since when does "education" preclude the Klingon language? How do
you define "significant"? How is the suggestion of elitism a
distriction? I consider it a problem for Wikimedia that should be
solved. When elitism results in the closure of harmless projects that
could potentially bring more people to Wikimedia (and maximise the use
of our content), it is a problem for the Foundation.
--
Oldak Quill (oldakquill(a)gmail.com)
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2007 19:45:57 -0600
From: "Muke Tever" <muke(a)frath.net>
Subject: Re: [Wiktionary-l] Klingon Wiktionary closed
To: "The Wiktionary (
http://www.wiktionary.org) mailing list"
<wiktionary-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Message-ID: <op.tp8kivmc2okkek(a)maadim.hsd1.co.comcast.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Dmcdevit <dmcdevit(a)cox.net> wrote:
First off,
what kind of attestation are you seeking here? There are published
reference books on the language and several translations into Klingon have been made:
Gilgamesh and a couple of Shakespeare plays are in print; online of course there's
more, such as extensive selections from the Bible (linguist Nick Nicholas has
the full text of the book of Mark on his website, among other things)... This is
as much as if not more than many minority natural languages have.
*All* natural languages have a right to be included when they meet the
requirements for starting a new language project, which is part of
Wikimedia's mission to provide the sum of all human knowledge *to every
single person*. That is a false comparison.
Ok, so you're drawing a distinction between natural languages and artificial
languages. That's perfectly fine; I'd support a difference in the rules on
that ground myself. But my response was not to that concern.
So, you have no original literature whatsoever, and a
hodgepodge of fan
translations of famous works into this fictional alien language, and
that ought to constitute enough use?
I don't have anything; it's not my language. I responded to your statement
that the words "cannot be attested," with attestation; the concept of
'enough
use' had not yet entered, and if you expect it to be met, you'll have to phrase
it more quantitatively.
Why is it that no one seems able to tell me how many
fluent speakers there are?
"Counting second language speakers is extremely difficult and approximate at best
and would run into the additional problem of deciding how well a person is supposed
to speak the language in order to be counted."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_speaker_data
At least other languages have educational uses,
including cross-lingualcommunication, ease of use or learning, simplification of existing
languages, etc.
All right, now you are proposing criteria for acceptable constructed language wikis.
That's fine too, though they are not the currently accepted criteria.
I agree with
Oldak about "elitist concerns as to the origin of the language".
I apologize if my concern that the Wikimedia Foundation, the charitable
organization we volunteer for, be used for significant, educational
purposes, as it is intended, appears elitist.
I wasn't speaking about the Wikimedia Foundation; I'm speaking of your opinion
of the language which seems largely to be based on its origin as the language
of a fictional alien race on a popular American television show, as if this were
somehow a less serious language origin than, say, having been cobbled together in the
altogether serious belief that it would bring about world peace, like several of the
more acceptable alternatives.
That does not fit my definition of elitism, however,
and bandying about the termis just an ad hominem distraction.
The point is to indicate your own argument seems to be rather _ad linguam_ (if I
may so mangle the phrase) -- it seems to be against Klingon because it is Klingon,
not because it meets any objective standard.
If Klingon (or
any other language) is to be rejected it should be on at least
moderately objective criteria, which would pertain to the language's present,
not its origin--the bar can be higher for a constructed language, but it should
at least be presented an opportunity to rise above its birth.
Your notion that Klingon, the language of a fictional alien race on a
popular American television show, has some kind of existence separate
from its origins is absurd.
I hope I didn't indicate I held such a notion. I intended to say its origins are
irrelevant to its status as a language, or ought to be.
It only needs to be rejected for its present: which is
as a linguistically
unimportant, functionally nonexistent, and educationally useless language towrite a
dictionary in.
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meta:Language_proposal_policy
indicates that the only additional criterion for a fictional language wiki as opposed
to a natural language one is "a reasonable degree of recognition", not
linguistic
importance, functional existence, or educational usefulness. (It also links to
the discussion saying tlh.wikipedia was closed due to inactivity; if there is a more
correct discussion, it may be helpful to update the link appropriately.)
*Muke!
--
website:
http://frath.net/
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2007 19:51:50 -0600
From: "Muke Tever" <muke(a)frath.net>
Subject: Re: [Wiktionary-l] Klingon Wiktionary closed
To: "The Wiktionary (
http://www.wiktionary.org) mailing list"
<wiktionary-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Message-ID: <op.tp8ksomz2okkek(a)maadim.hsd1.co.comcast.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
GerardM <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Hoi,
When having only 60 articles is a criterion for deletion of a Wikipedia
project, there are many more projects in the danger zone. 50 of the current
250 Wikipedias do not have this number of articles. This is as far as I am
concerned no valid reason.
Of course, if it's a natural language. But in a constructed language I can
see justifying a minimum amount of activity.
*Muke!
--
website:
http://frath.net/
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2007 10:31:47 +0200
From: Yann Forget <yann(a)forget-me.net>
Subject: Re: [Wiktionary-l] Klingon Wiktionary closed
To: wiktionary-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Message-ID: <46136273.4040402(a)forget-me.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Hello,
Dmcdevit wrote:
(...)
Your notion that Klingon, the language of a fictional
alien race on a
popular American television show, has some kind of existence separate
from its origins is absurd. It only needs to be rejected for its
present: which is as a linguistically unimportant, functionally
nonexistent, and educationally useless language to write a dictionary in.
I agree with the closing of this Wiktionary, and this argument says it all.
Dominic
Best regards,
Yann
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2007 04:35:59 -0600
From: "Muke Tever" <muke(a)frath.net>
Subject: Re: [Wiktionary-l] Klingon Wiktionary closed
To: "The Wiktionary (
http://www.wiktionary.org) mailing list"
<wiktionary-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Message-ID: <op.tp8819j92okkek(a)maadim.hsd1.co.comcast.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Yann Forget <yann(a)forget-me.net> wrote:
Dmcdevit wrote:
(...)
Your notion that Klingon, the language of a
fictional alien race on a
popular American television show, has some kind of existence separate
from its origins is absurd. It only needs to be rejected for its
present: which is as a linguistically unimportant, functionally
nonexistent, and educationally useless language to write a dictionary in.
I agree with the closing of this Wiktionary, and this argument says it all.
It is not an argument, it is rhetoric. And very weak, at that. It can be used
with equal force by the other side, e.g.
> Our language is considered linguistically
unimportant, functionally
> nonexistent, and educationally useless. It is thus all the more imperative
> that we produce a dictionary in it.
Prejudice like that against a natural language (which is very often expressed in
the world) would, I hope, never stand here against the opening of a wiki. The only
remaining part of the agreed-with argument is that it is a constructed language, and
we have not been deleting wikis merely because they belong to constructed languages.
*Muke!
--
website:
http://frath.net/
------------------------------
Message: 7
Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2007 12:47:48 +0200
From: Yann Forget <yann(a)forget-me.net>
Subject: Re: [Wiktionary-l] Klingon Wiktionary closed
To: "The Wiktionary (
http://www.wiktionary.org) mailing list"
<wiktionary-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Message-ID: <46138254.3060809(a)forget-me.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Hi,
And claiming the Klingon should be supported by Wikimedia without giving
any information about numbers of speakers, is not rethoric???
I think we don't have the same definition of this word.
Regards,
Yann
Muke Tever wrote:
Yann Forget <yann(a)forget-me.net> wrote:
Dmcdevit wrote:
(...)
Your notion that Klingon, the language of a
fictional alien race on a
popular American television show, has some kind of existence separate
from its origins is absurd. It only needs to be rejected for its
present: which is as a linguistically unimportant, functionally
nonexistent, and educationally useless language to write a dictionary in.
I agree
with the closing of this Wiktionary, and this argument says it all.
It is not an argument, it is rhetoric. And very weak, at that. It can be used
with equal force by the other side, e.g.
> Our language is considered linguistically
unimportant, functionally
> nonexistent, and educationally useless. It is thus all the more imperative
> that we produce a dictionary in it.
Prejudice like that against a natural language (which is very often expressed in
the world) would, I hope, never stand here against the opening of a wiki. The only
remaining part of the agreed-with argument is that it is a constructed language, and
we have not been deleting wikis merely because they belong to constructed languages.
*Muke!
------------------------------
Message: 8
Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2007 07:58:49 -0700
From: Dmcdevit <dmcdevit(a)cox.net>
Subject: Re: [Wiktionary-l] Klingon Wiktionary closed
To: "The Wiktionary (
http://www.wiktionary.org) mailing list"
<wiktionary-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Message-ID: <4613BD29.4060906(a)cox.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Muke Tever wrote:
Yann Forget <yann(a)forget-me.net> wrote:
Dmcdevit wrote:
(...)
Your notion that Klingon, the language of a
fictional alien race on a
popular American television show, has some kind of existence separate
from its origins is absurd. It only needs to be rejected for its
present: which is as a linguistically unimportant, functionally
nonexistent, and educationally useless language to write a dictionary in.
I agree with the closing of this Wiktionary, and this argument says it
all.
It is not an argument, it is rhetoric. And very weak, at that. It can be used
with equal force by the other side, e.g.
> Our language is considered linguistically
unimportant, functionally
> nonexistent, and educationally useless. It is thus all the more imperative
> that we produce a dictionary in it.
Prejudice like that against a natural language (which is very often expressed in
the world) would, I hope, never stand here against the opening of a wiki. The only
remaining part of the agreed-with argument is that it is a constructed language, and
we have not been deleting wikis merely because they belong to constructed languages.
*Muke!
You are under the misimpression that I don't like Klingon *because* it
is a constructed language. Nowhere have I said that. I have given actual
reasons, including its lack of speakers, lack of literature, lack of
significance, lack of educational use. On the other hand, if your
argument *is* "Our language is considered linguistically unimportant,
functionally nonexistent, and educationally useless. It is thus all the
more imperative that we produce a dictionary in it" that's not a
problem. The problem would be using that argument to create an
admittedly "educationally useless" dictionary as a WMF project rather
than on an external site. Inclusion guidelines are not prejudice; if you
are against any vetting of supposed languages at all, I think you are
fighting a losing battle. Wiktionary is not for promotion of your pet
project, so this is beginning to sound rather like the sort of argument
I hear when I delete some kid's protologism on Wiktionary, of some high
school band on Wikipedia ("The world doesn't know about it/us yet;
that's why we need an article!"). In fact, it *is* important that our
work support educational purposes, and it's not unreasonable to demand that.
Dominic
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Wiktionary-l mailing list
Wiktionary-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiktionary-l
End of Wiktionary-l Digest, Vol 29, Issue 3
*******************************************