[Foundation-l] Allow new wikis in extinct languages?

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
When there is no modern vocabulary and this is objectively determined by
modern literature there is no living language at all. Also one hobbyist does
not make a language alive.
Thanks,
     GerardM

On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 6:50 AM, Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com> wrote:

> The fact that the Coptic church may or may not issue their documents
> in Coptic is not enough alone to state that this is a "dead language".
>
> We must look at all facets of modern use (and lack thereof), rather
> than just the issuance of new documents by a particular church in a
> specific language.
>
> Mark
>
> On 01/04/2008, Aphaia <aphaia at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 5:04 AM, Pharos <pharosofalexandria at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >  > On Sat, Mar 29, 2008 at 5:33 PM, Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > For Latin, it is obvious. The latest Roman Missal was published in
> >  2002. If you can argue it is not so much different from the second
> >  latest one, it had been published in 1962. Reflecting the so-called
> >  2nd Vatican Counsil and its reformation, 1962 version, or Novus Ordo
> >  is very known of its differences from the earlier versions. Or we can
> >  refer to CCC or several motu proprios which the Vatican has issued.
> >
> >  On the other hand, Coptic Church doesn't seem to be enthusiastic to
> >  issue their documents in Coptic. As for the Orthodox, I don't know any
> >  church in the Slavic tradition using Church Slavic as their document
> >  language, while still today it is the language of liturgy and the
> >  Scrupture and many prayers, and Churches in Greek tradition don't use
> >  Attic dialect as far as I know.
> >
> >  There is a good reason Latin learners can be allowed to entertain
> >  their linguistic ability on this project, I think. Anyway, even in a
> >  narrow region, it is still used and viable to carry ideas.
> >
> >
> >  >  Yes, I think the exact rule we should propose is: Does this language
> >  >  have a contemporary literature?  Are new articles or books still be
> >  >  written in it?
> >  >
> >  >  And is the contemporary literature respected by -scholars- of the
> >  >  "historical" language (i.e. not something merely pursued by Sumerian
> >  >  hobbyists)?
> >  >
> >  >  Because if there is a contemporary literature, then the language is
> >  >  not truly extinct in the written form.
> >  >
> >  >  When we "provide the sum of human knowledge to every human being",
> we
> >  >  must recognize the diversity of human expression, and that a -full-
> >  >  accounting of the vehicles of intellectual discourse must include
> all
> >  >  languages that have contemporary literatures, whether they havve
> >  >  native speakers or not.
> >  >
> >  >  Pharos
> >  >
> >  >
> >  >
> >  >  >  On 29/03/2008, Jesse Martin (Pathoschild) <pathoschild at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >  >  >  > Hello,
> >  >  >  >
> >  >  >  >  The language subcommittee only allows languages that have a
> living
> >  >  >  >  native community (except Wikisource, due to its archivist
> nature).
> >  >  >  >  This is based on an interpretation of the Wikimedia Foundation
> mission
> >  >  >  >  to "provide the sum of human knowledge to every human being".
> Thus,
> >  >  >  >  the overriding purpose of allowing a wiki in a new language is
> to make
> >  >  >  >  it accessible to more human beings. If a language has no
> native users,
> >  >  >  >  allowing a wiki in that language does not fit our mission
> because it
> >  >  >  >  does not make that project accessible to more human beings.
> Instead, a
> >  >  >  >  wiki in their native languages should be requested if it
> doesn't
> >  >  >  >  already exist.
> >  >  >  >
> >  >  >  >  Typically, the users requesting a wiki in an extinct language
> don't
> >  >  >  >  want to provide educational material to more people at all,
> but only
> >  >  >  >  want to promote or revive the language. While these are noble
> goals,
> >  >  >  >  they are not those of the Wikimedia Foundation, so that a wiki
> should
> >  >  >  >  not be created simply to fulfill them.
> >  >  >  >
> >  >  >  >  But that is my opinion. What do you think; should wikis be
> allowed in
> >  >  >  >  every extinct language?
> >  >  >  >
> >  >  >  >
> >  >  >  >  --
> >  >  >  >  Yours cordially,
> >  >  >  >  Jesse Plamondon-Willard (Pathoschild)
> >  >  >  >
> >  >  >  >  _______________________________________________
> >  >  >  >  foundation-l mailing list
> >  >  >  >  foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> >  >  >  >  Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >  >  >  >
> >  >  >
> >  >  >  _______________________________________________
> >  >  >  foundation-l mailing list
> >  >  >  foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> >  >  >  Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >  >  >
> >  >
> >  >  _______________________________________________
> >  >  foundation-l mailing list
> >  >  foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> >  >  Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >  >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> >  KIZU Naoko
> >  http://d.hatena.ne.jp/Britty (in Japanese)
> >  Quote of the Day (English): http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/WQ:QOTD
> >
> >
> >  _______________________________________________
> >  foundation-l mailing list
> >  foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> >  Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>