-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Per the announcement I put in the sitenotice last month, I have locked the Klingon-language Wiktionary, http://tlh.wiktionary.org/
As far as I know there was never any deliberate intention to have such a site (it would have been automatically created alongside the Klingon Wikipedia), and it was forgotten when the Klingon Wikipedia was closed. As soon as I was notified of its existence I put up the notice that it would not stay, so anyone working on it would be aware.
The only response I got to my notice was this very rude message, which was hidden away where I never saw it until today: http://tlh.wiktionary.org/wiki/lo%27wI%27_ja%27chuq:Brion_VIBBER
It seems pretty clear to me that the site doesn't serve any legitimate purpose to Wikimedia's mission; while it may be _fun_ it would be better hosted somewhere else, perhaps whereever the Klingon Wikipedia ended up?
If there's some legitimate reason to reopen it, let me know. We could hand the question off to the Language Committee if desired.
- -- brion vibber (brion @ wikimedia.org)
What legitimate purpose to Wikimedia's mission do serve then Esperanto, Ido, Interlingua, Interlingue, etc. Wiktionaries? You might want to lock all invented languages then. The message You got on tlh.wikt. is unaccaptable. But it should not be a reason for closing that wikt. Please have a look at the statements here http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9164
The reason to reopen it is: It is a _dictionary_ of an invented language. We have other Wiktionaries of that kind. Also, as I could see, there are quite active contributors there, so this wikt. got even bigger than some of the other mentioned invented languages sites not closed.
Thanks, best regards, Elisabeth Anderl -aka- spacebirdy
Brion Vibber escribió:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Per the announcement I put in the sitenotice last month, I have locked the Klingon-language Wiktionary, http://tlh.wiktionary.org/
As far as I know there was never any deliberate intention to have such a site (it would have been automatically created alongside the Klingon Wikipedia), and it was forgotten when the Klingon Wikipedia was closed. As soon as I was notified of its existence I put up the notice that it would not stay, so anyone working on it would be aware.
The only response I got to my notice was this very rude message, which was hidden away where I never saw it until today: http://tlh.wiktionary.org/wiki/lo%27wI%27_ja%27chuq:Brion_VIBBER
It seems pretty clear to me that the site doesn't serve any legitimate purpose to Wikimedia's mission; while it may be _fun_ it would be better hosted somewhere else, perhaps whereever the Klingon Wikipedia ended up?
If there's some legitimate reason to reopen it, let me know. We could hand the question off to the Language Committee if desired.
- -- brion vibber (brion @ wikimedia.org)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFGDe96wRnhpk1wk44RApOyAKCCfGg5T8QbmIplUpZt8rfixdza6gCcClGT iaxAkmqlLd+T6/tBUXoY4s8= =Fuk4 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Wiktionary-l mailing list Wiktionary-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiktionary-l
On 31/03/07, Elisabeth Anderl n9502784@students.meduniwien.ac.at wrote:
What legitimate purpose to Wikimedia's mission do serve then Esperanto, Ido, Interlingua, Interlingue, etc. Wiktionaries? You might want to lock all invented languages then. The message You got on tlh.wikt. is unaccaptable. But it should not be a reason for closing that wikt. Please have a look at the statements here http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9164
The reason to reopen it is: It is a _dictionary_ of an invented language. We have other Wiktionaries of that kind. Also, as I could see, there are quite active contributors there, so this wikt. got even bigger than some of the other mentioned invented languages sites not closed.
One can't dismiss all constructed languages out of hand. Esperanto, for one, has an ISO 639 code (1, 2, and 3) and has a signficant level of usage. Several other constructed languages come close to this.
Despite Klingon not being the same in terms of real-world usage, I'm not sure what harm such projects do. If they bring people to Wikimedia who wouldn't otherwise be here, then they are good.
On 31/03/07, Elisabeth Anderl n9502784@students.meduniwien.ac.at wrote:
What legitimate purpose to Wikimedia's mission do serve then Esperanto, Ido, Interlingua, Interlingue, etc. Wiktionaries? You might want to lock all invented languages then. The message You got on tlh.wikt. is unaccaptable. But it should not be a reason for closing that wikt. Please have a look at the statements here http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9164
The reason to reopen it is: It is a _dictionary_ of an invented language. We have other Wiktionaries of that kind. Also, as I could see, there are quite active contributors there, so this wikt. got even bigger than some of the other mentioned invented languages sites not closed.
Thanks, best regards, Elisabeth Anderl -aka- spacebirdy
Brion Vibber escribió:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Per the announcement I put in the sitenotice last month, I have locked the Klingon-language Wiktionary, http://tlh.wiktionary.org/
As far as I know there was never any deliberate intention to have such a site (it would have been automatically created alongside the Klingon Wikipedia), and it was forgotten when the Klingon Wikipedia was closed. As soon as I was notified of its existence I put up the notice that it would not stay, so anyone working on it would be aware.
The only response I got to my notice was this very rude message, which was hidden away where I never saw it until today: http://tlh.wiktionary.org/wiki/lo%27wI%27_ja%27chuq:Brion_VIBBER
It seems pretty clear to me that the site doesn't serve any legitimate purpose to Wikimedia's mission; while it may be _fun_ it would be better hosted somewhere else, perhaps whereever the Klingon Wikipedia ended up?
If there's some legitimate reason to reopen it, let me know. We could hand the question off to the Language Committee if desired.
Well, it turns out Klingon has an ISO 639-2 and an ISO 639-3 code too. If it is recognised as a language by the ISO, why are we rejecting their right to have a project?
ISO 639 as the basis for the existance of language projects has been constant used to justify the Belarussian turn of events. Aren't we acting with double standards to consider ISO 639 all-important for one language but suggest this is not important for another.
Hoi, The closure of the tlh.wikipedia was announced by Jimmy Wales at Wikimania .. The room cheered and thought it a good idea. This was before the lanuguage committee was started.
When you read the phrasing about languages, you will find that an ISO-639 code is a requirement. This does however not imply at all that it guarantees the creation of a project. With the ISO-639-6 it is likely that there will be a code for the American orthography (among others) for the English language. This will not imply at all that it will be ok to split the English language Wikipedia.
Having two projects for Belarus is a really bad situation. For me the only reasonable outcome would be when the two projects merge.
The existence of new policies does not imply that they will be retroactively applied. When this is thought to be unfair, I do agree, it is often not fair.
Thanks, GerardM
On 3/31/07, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
On 31/03/07, Elisabeth Anderl n9502784@students.meduniwien.ac.at wrote:
What legitimate purpose to Wikimedia's mission do serve then Esperanto, Ido, Interlingua, Interlingue, etc. Wiktionaries? You might want to lock all invented languages then. The message You got on tlh.wikt. is unaccaptable. But it should not be a reason for closing that wikt. Please have a look at the statements here http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9164
The reason to reopen it is: It is a _dictionary_ of an invented language. We have other Wiktionaries of that kind. Also, as I could see, there are quite active contributors there, so this wikt. got even bigger than some of the other mentioned invented languages sites not closed.
Thanks, best regards, Elisabeth Anderl -aka- spacebirdy
Brion Vibber escribió:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Per the announcement I put in the sitenotice last month, I have locked the Klingon-language Wiktionary, http://tlh.wiktionary.org/
As far as I know there was never any deliberate intention to have such
a
site (it would have been automatically created alongside the Klingon Wikipedia), and it was forgotten when the Klingon Wikipedia was
closed.
As soon as I was notified of its existence I put up the notice that it would not stay, so anyone working on it would be aware.
The only response I got to my notice was this very rude message, which was hidden away where I never saw it until today: http://tlh.wiktionary.org/wiki/lo%27wI%27_ja%27chuq:Brion_VIBBER
It seems pretty clear to me that the site doesn't serve any legitimate purpose to Wikimedia's mission; while it may be _fun_ it would be
better
hosted somewhere else, perhaps whereever the Klingon Wikipedia ended
up?
If there's some legitimate reason to reopen it, let me know. We could hand the question off to the Language Committee if desired.
Well, it turns out Klingon has an ISO 639-2 and an ISO 639-3 code too. If it is recognised as a language by the ISO, why are we rejecting their right to have a project?
ISO 639 as the basis for the existance of language projects has been constant used to justify the Belarussian turn of events. Aren't we acting with double standards to consider ISO 639 all-important for one language but suggest this is not important for another.
-- Oldak Quill (oldakquill@gmail.com) _______________________________________________ Wiktionary-l mailing list Wiktionary-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiktionary-l
On 31/03/07, GerardM gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
When you read the phrasing about languages, you will find that an ISO-639 code is a requirement. This does however not imply at all that it guarantees the creation of a project. With the ISO-639-6 it is likely that there will be a code for the American orthography (among others) for the English language. This will not imply at all that it will be ok to split the English language Wikipedia.
I was merely suggesting that if we take ISO-639 to be our basis as to what is a language and what is not a language, Klingon passes the mark. Your American English example isn't quite the same since American English still has an expression in Wikimedia project. At the moment, the Klingon language has no representation on any Wikimedia project (effectively).
Elisabeth Anderl wrote:
What legitimate purpose to Wikimedia's mission do serve then Esperanto, Ido, Interlingua, Interlingue, etc. Wiktionaries? You might want to lock all invented languages then.
Of the above, Esperanto has the best claim since it's actually used "in the wild", with real speakers, including native speakers, and has over a century of literature, music, novels, magazines, letters, plays, and films to draw from as a corpus.
As for the others, long-established policy has generally been to allow (especially older) languages originally created as general-purpose auxiliary languages, while disallowing those constructed languages created primarily for use in fictional works or hobby purposes.
Klingon is a part of a fictional universe; compare it to Tolkein's Sindarin and Quenya (although it is a bit more developed), not to Esperanto.
The Klingon Wikipedia was closed on that basis after quite a bit of debate, a decision finally being made by Jimmy's fiat; had we been aware there was a stub Klingon Wiktionary it would have been closed at the same time, but it escaped notice. (Toki pona was also closed some time ago amid debate on where in the auxlang-conlang continuum it lies, despite my support for it. Klingon is not alone.)
Now personally, I would be happy to let the language committee or whoever's supposed to be deciding these things these days make a final decision. I'd also be happy to pull the block during such an 'appeal'.
For now, I'm just applying the existing policy to something which got forgotten.
-- brion vibber (brion @ wikimedia.org)
You know what? Hell with it, what do I care.
I'm removing the lock.
-- brion vibber (brion @ wikimedia.org)
Brion Vibber wrote:
You know what? Hell with it, what do I care.
I'm removing the lock.
-- brion vibber (brion @ wikimedia.org)
Wiktionary-l mailing list Wiktionary-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiktionary-l
Aside from the sensationalist fallacious logic that getting rid of Klingon Wiktionary means we will get rid of every other constructed language, even ones with native speakers and literature, has anyone offered any reason to keep it?
We're still talking about the fictional language of a race of intelligent crustaceans in the 24th century as portrayed in a popular TV show, right? I think it should be the responsibility of that project's editors (if there are any), now that the Wikipedia is shut down, to now take it through the normal procedure for opening new Wiktionaries, as this one never did.
Dominic
On 31/03/07, Dmcdevit dmcdevit@cox.net wrote:
Aside from the sensationalist fallacious logic that getting rid of Klingon Wiktionary means we will get rid of every other constructed language, even ones with native speakers and literature, has anyone offered any reason to keep it?
We're still talking about the fictional language of a race of intelligent crustaceans in the 24th century as portrayed in a popular TV show, right? I think it should be the responsibility of that project's editors (if there are any), now that the Wikipedia is shut down, to now take it through the normal procedure for opening new Wiktionaries, as this one never did.
For the sake of full disclosure: I have never watched an episode of Star Trek on TV or any of the films. I have no interest in the fictional world.
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
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. It's not about elitism; in fact, it's rather likely to me that other constructed languages of the same speaker population would not have gotten a wiki in the first place. I agree that what matters is the place of the language in the world right now, and that place is as a backdrop to a fictional universe with a fanbase who are sometimes known to use the words amongst themselves. It is encyclopedically interesting as a cultural phenomenon, but has no place as a dictionary. Words that aren't in common independent use except in reference to a literary work, or discussion in the context of that work, are not material for a general dictionary.
Dominic
On 01/04/07, Dmcdevit dmcdevit@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. It's not about elitism; in fact, it's rather likely to me that other constructed languages of the same speaker population would not have gotten a wiki in the first place. I agree that what matters is the place of the language in the world right now, and that place is as a backdrop to a fictional universe with a fanbase who are sometimes known to use the words amongst themselves. It is encyclopedically interesting as a cultural phenomenon, but has no place as a dictionary. Words that aren't in common independent use except in reference to a literary work, or discussion in the context of that work, are not material for a general dictionary.
Wiktionary don't just contain the words of the language they're written in. Words of all languages and contexts are ideally in Wiktionary.There's no reason why Klingon couldn't get a broad coverage of words.
Oldak Quill wrote:
On 01/04/07, Dmcdevit dmcdevit@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. It's not about elitism; in fact, it's rather likely to me that other constructed languages of the same speaker population would not have gotten a wiki in the first place. I agree that what matters is the place of the language in the world right now, and that place is as a backdrop to a fictional universe with a fanbase who are sometimes known to use the words amongst themselves. It is encyclopedically interesting as a cultural phenomenon, but has no place as a dictionary. Words that aren't in common independent use except in reference to a literary work, or discussion in the context of that work, are not material for a general dictionary.
Wiktionary don't just contain the words of the language they're written in. Words of all languages and contexts are ideally in Wiktionary.There's no reason why Klingon couldn't get a broad coverage of words.
Are you suggesting we make a dictionary that defines words in terms that it does not itself define, since they cannot be attested according to normal dictionary standards? Or are you suggesting that we make a dictionary that, because it was established as a dictionary written using words that cannot be attested according to normal dictionary standards, does not maintain the same standards as a dictionary? Neither of them is acceptable.
Dominic
On 01/04/07, Dmcdevit dmcdevit@cox.net wrote:
Oldak Quill wrote:
On 01/04/07, Dmcdevit dmcdevit@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. It's not about elitism; in fact, it's rather likely to me that other constructed languages of the same speaker population would not have gotten a wiki in the first place. I agree that what matters is the place of the language in the world right now, and that place is as a backdrop to a fictional universe with a fanbase who are sometimes known to use the words amongst themselves. It is encyclopedically interesting as a cultural phenomenon, but has no place as a dictionary. Words that aren't in common independent use except in reference to a literary work, or discussion in the context of that work, are not material for a general dictionary.
Wiktionary don't just contain the words of the language they're written in. Words of all languages and contexts are ideally in Wiktionary.There's no reason why Klingon couldn't get a broad coverage of words.
Are you suggesting we make a dictionary that defines words in terms that it does not itself define, since they cannot be attested according to normal dictionary standards? Or are you suggesting that we make a
A dictionary in language X should be able to define a concept in language Y, even though language X doesn't have a word for that language, in relatively few words.
Oldak Quill wrote:
On 01/04/07, Dmcdevit dmcdevit@cox.net wrote:
Oldak Quill wrote:
On 01/04/07, Dmcdevit dmcdevit@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. It's not about elitism; in fact, it's rather likely to me that other constructed languages of the same speaker population would not have gotten a wiki in the first place. I agree that what matters is the place of the language in the world right now, and that place is as a backdrop to a fictional universe with a fanbase who are sometimes known to use the words amongst themselves. It is encyclopedically interesting as a cultural phenomenon, but has no place as a dictionary. Words that aren't in common independent use except in reference to a literary work, or discussion in the context of that work, are not material for a general dictionary.
Wiktionary don't just contain the words of the language they're written in. Words of all languages and contexts are ideally in Wiktionary.There's no reason why Klingon couldn't get a broad coverage of words.
Are you suggesting we make a dictionary that defines words in terms that it does not itself define, since they cannot be attested according to normal dictionary standards? Or are you suggesting that we make a
A dictionary in language X should be able to define a concept in language Y, even though language X doesn't have a word for that language, in relatively few words.
That's not how Wiktionary works. The English Wiktionary, for example, defines non-English words *in English*. A Klingon dictionary would be expected to define words in Klingon. So I repeat, your choices are either to have a dictionary define words using words it does not define (Klingon words) or to define words (Klingon words) that cannot be attested according to normal dictionary standards. Either choice damages the integrity of the dictionary.
Dominic
On 01/04/07, Dmcdevit dmcdevit@cox.net wrote:
Oldak Quill wrote:
On 01/04/07, Dmcdevit dmcdevit@cox.net wrote:
Oldak Quill wrote:
On 01/04/07, Dmcdevit dmcdevit@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. It's not about elitism; in fact, it's rather likely to me that other constructed languages of the same speaker population would not have gotten a wiki in the first place. I agree that what matters is the place of the language in the world right now, and that place is as a backdrop to a fictional universe with a fanbase who are sometimes known to use the words amongst themselves. It is encyclopedically interesting as a cultural phenomenon, but has no place as a dictionary. Words that aren't in common independent use except in reference to a literary work, or discussion in the context of that work, are not material for a general dictionary.
Wiktionary don't just contain the words of the language they're written in. Words of all languages and contexts are ideally in Wiktionary.There's no reason why Klingon couldn't get a broad coverage of words.
Are you suggesting we make a dictionary that defines words in terms that it does not itself define, since they cannot be attested according to normal dictionary standards? Or are you suggesting that we make a
A dictionary in language X should be able to define a concept in language Y, even though language X doesn't have a word for that language, in relatively few words.
That's not how Wiktionary works. The English Wiktionary, for example, defines non-English words *in English*. A Klingon dictionary would be expected to define words in Klingon. So I repeat, your choices are either to have a dictionary define words using words it does not define (Klingon words) or to define words (Klingon words) that cannot be attested according to normal dictionary standards. Either choice damages the integrity of the dictionary.
Sorry, I don't think I was at all clear. Of course, a Klingon dictionary would be expected to define words in Klingon. I was just making the point it could define non-Klingon words in Klingon.
On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 17:20:29 -0600, Dmcdevit dmcdevit@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.
I agree with Oldak about "elitist concerns as to the origin of the language". 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.
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.
*Muke!
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.
The Klingon was ended because of the many people who were of the opinion that it was a blemish on the reputation of Wikipedia. When the end of this project was announced people cheered.. The good thing is that it ended an issue that people were quite happy to ask for it to be ended again and again.
Given that the tlh.wikipedia was ended by the board, it is and was final.
Thanks, GerardM
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikipedias
On 4/4/07, Muke Tever muke@frath.net wrote:
On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 17:20:29 -0600, Dmcdevit dmcdevit@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.
I agree with Oldak about "elitist concerns as to the origin of the language". 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.
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.
*Muke!-- website: http://frath.net/
Wiktionary-l mailing list Wiktionary-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiktionary-l
GerardM gerard.meijssen@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!
Muke Tever wrote:
On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 17:20:29 -0600, Dmcdevit dmcdevit@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
On 04/04/07, Dmcdevit dmcdevit@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.
Dmcdevit dmcdevit@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!
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
Yann Forget yann@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!
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@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!
Hoi, The discussion about the Klingon Wiktionary is moot. After the initial lock down of this database, Brion has opened it up again. Technically it has a status aparte as is it impossible to create interwiki links between this and any other Wiktionary. This is very much the situation as before this latest exchange of pleasantries started.
As far as I am aware, nobody is really interested in it and be unpopular by one or another fraction within our communities. The language committee will not consider it because part of the status of the Klingon language within the Wikimedia Foundation has been decided in the past on the board level. The committee will only consider it when the board asks it to do so.
My conclusion: the least words spilled over it, the better. However, if people want this project seriously closed, they should try to get this done now or else leave it be (including in the future).
Thanks, GerardM
Yann Forget yann@forget-me.net wrote:
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.
I'm sorry, where in this discussion have I claimed Wikimedia should support Klingon?
*Muke!
Muke Tever wrote:
Yann Forget yann@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
Dmcdevit dmcdevit@cox.net wrote:
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.
Indeed, but none of those--nor even the lot of them at once--are reasons not to have a wiki. Though if it *is* because it is a constructed language as well, then I can see the argument.
On the other hand, if your argument *is* "Our language is consideredlinguistically unimportant, functionally nonexistent, and educationallyuseless. It is thus all the more imperative that we produce a dictionaryin it" that's not a problem.
I'm sorry, that's not my argument. That was intended to be an example of how neutral your original statement actually was, in response to the idea that it was some kind of killing blow.
Inclusion guidelines are not prejudice; if you are against any vetting ofsupposed languages at all, I think you are fighting a losing battle.
What? I have been for inclusion guidelines for constructed languages through this whole discussion.
Wiktionary is not for promotion of your pet project, so this is beginningto sound rather like the sort of argument I hear when I delete some kid'sprotologism on Wiktionary, of some high school band on Wikipedia ("The worlddoesn't know about it/us yet; that's why we need an article!").
I'm sorry, I have no special interest in Klingon.
In fact, it *is* important that our work support educational purposes, and it'snot unreasonable to demand that.
Of course it's not unreasonable. But demanding our work support educational purposes has nothing to do with the matter at hand--unless you mean our work support educational purposes _only_, which is a statement with much more far-reaching consequences than the mere rejection of Klingon.
*Muke!
Oldak Quill wrote:
For the sake of full disclosure: I have never watched an episode of Star Trek on TV or any of the films. I have no interest in the fictional world.
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
And I think this shows what is wrong with the ISO.
--Jimbo
Frankly I don't see what is wrong with having a Klingon dictionary. If Wikipedia can have an entry like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breen why get picky about yet-another artificial language.
Jim
Jim Breen wrote:
Frankly I don't see what is wrong with having a Klingon dictionary. If Wikipedia can have an entry like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breen why get picky about yet-another artificial language.
Jim
Sorry, what was the reason that Klingon is a useful language to build a dictionary in? What does the English Wikipedia article on "Breen" have to do with anything? That a single encyclopedia article on an unrelated project is about a fictional species in Star Trek means we should *write a dictionary* in a fictional language of Star Trek? I fail to see the connection.
Dominic
wiktionary-l@lists.wikimedia.org