[Foundation-l] Ancient

Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen at gmail.com
Sun Apr 13 09:10:03 UTC 2008

In the language committee things are done by consensus. If you want to
become a member of the committee, you will find that there are things that
are at best a compromise. When the only reason to become a member of the LC
is to argue a case, it makes little difference ;we can discuss on this list
as effectively.

If you are interested in doing the work that we do in the LC, you will want
to know about all the esoterica that are part of understanding how languages
are dealt with technically, its different standards and their interaction.
If you do not care for that, you can implement the procedures as they are.

On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 10:59 AM, Dovi Jacobs <dovijacobs at yahoo.com> wrote:

> >"Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in
> the
> >sum of all knowledge. That's our commitment." The best way to inform is
> by
> >using the mother tongue of people.
> Mother tongues are the best, but providing information in one of
> the great classical languages of Western civilization is also
> a lovely idea for sharing the "sum of all knowledge." Probably
> more useful than a few of the current European languages that
> are hardly spoken as first languages anymore (not that I have
> any objection to those either).
> You do not need "native speakers" (mother tongue) to set up a
> project. I had the pleasure of getting the Hebrew Wikisource
> up and running, currently with many active contributors
> and over 4,000 texts. Hebrew is not my "native" (mother) tongue
> but I can contribute on a professional level. Same might be
> said for contributors in many languages. What you need are
> active, competent contributors, not native speakers or "mother"
> tongue.
> Gerard, you repeat your arguments about neologisms at length,
> adding nothing new, and then conclude:
> >The arguments the language committee uses are clear. They are published
> and
> >they are objective. You may not like them, but they are the arguments we
> >use. When people have issues, the arguments have to be convincing to make
> a
> >difference.
> No, Gerard. Your arguments are indeed published, but they are
> not objective. It is *you* who have to convince the community
> at large that your arguments are correct.
> >We use the ISO-639-3 as a reference. You are
> >welcome to apply for a label for reconstructed Old Greek.
> No need, "grc" will do just fine!
> I would like to add that I have no personal interest whatsoever
> in grc.wikipedia.org (my Greek is rudimentary). But I do have great
> respect for the fine contributions by others that I saw. And
> I think that the way the arguments have been made and the process
> has been handled need improvement.
> I again repeat my request for information about the language
> committee. I would like to see more voices and greater diversity
> of opinion on it. How is its membership determined?
> Dovi
>  __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
> _______________________________________________
> 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