[Foundation-l] Allow new wikis in extinct languages?
Pharos
pharosofalexandria at gmail.com
Wed Apr 2 05:17:22 UTC 2008
On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 1:04 AM, Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com> wrote:
> Yes, well then, what does make a language alive? An Ethnologue or ISO
> classification as a living language? Or is this determined based on
> some set of objective criteria we don't know about? Is it only the
> question of native speakers, or is there something else?
>
> Also, what if there are conflicting sources? For example some sources
> state that there are native speakers of Coptic; others state that it
> is completely dead since the 18th century.
We have to look at the literature. To me, it shouldn't matter whether
it's the Coptic Church that's writing the new literature, or someone
else notable (I'm not actually sure if the Coptic Church is doing
this, but let's assume for the sake of argument). As long as there is
a notable -contemporary- literature, vocabulary problems will be
minimal.
Fact is, many native languages also tend to only be written in certain
genres, and the fact that literature may tend to be concentrated in
certain genres shouldn't be held against a written language.
Thanks,
Pharos
> On 01/04/2008, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
> > 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
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>
More information about the foundation-l
mailing list