cimonavaro at gmail.com
Wed Apr 11 12:34:04 UTC 2007
On 4/11/07, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
> Milos Rancic schreef:
> > For now, just a small practical input from my side...
> > On 4/11/07, Florence Devouard <Anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> * should it be the board to decide closure of the Klingon Wiktionary ?
> > This should be Language SubCom's job.
> The language committee will not visit issues that are a "blast from the
> past" like the Klingon language. The Klingon Wikipedia was ended before
> there was a language committee by Jimmy at Wikimania. To me this implies
> that it would currently be something that would be equivalent to a board
> decision. When the board wants us to consider Klingon, we will consider
> When the board wants us to consider the Klingon Wiktionary, it is an
> existing database where the content is centred on Klingon. It fulfils
> those requirements, so there is no pressing need that requires the
> attention of the language committee.
> Not having asked the other members of the committee, it is obviously my
> personal opinion. I am do not mind there being a Klingon Wiktionary, I
> was not bothered about the existence of a Klingon Wikipedia either.
Even if thought slightly off topic for this thread, I think it should
be clarified that there is a distinct difference in providing the sum
of human knowledge available in a particular minor language, dialect,
cant or con-lang, and on the other hand documenting the same minor
languages (etc.) vocabulary in an online dictionary.
Not only is there a vast difference in scale, the sum totality of
human knowledge in a language with absolutely no known speakers (and
to be clear, for the purposes of this example I make no such claim in
the particular case of Klingon) has an entirely different utility
function than a descriptive vocabulary of same.
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]
More information about the foundation-l