[Foundation-l] [Langcom-l] Ancient Greek reconstructed an analysis of a proposal for a new Wikipedia

[Mark Williamson]

So Ancient Greek is not a natural language? 100 out of 100 linguists
would beg to differ.

Mark

On 17/04/2008, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hoi,
>  Please read the proposal better next time. "sufficiently expressive" is used
>  for the proposed criteria for constructed and reconstructed languages.
>  Natural languages are not like Navajo are not in that class.
>
>  If you have not found arguments for the use of languages that are spoken
>  natively, you are effectively denying the use of projects like Latin and
>  Esperanto and are in effect blanket blocking all constructed and dead
>  languages to have a Wikipedia. It is nice to have that in the open.
>
>  This "vague statement" has been there from the start, it is only vague
>  because of your insistence that it is to be interpreted in a way it was not
>  intended to be. The intent was that it was to be read as an exception on the
>  rule for native speakers. I know because I put it there.
>  Thanks,
>
>      Gerard
>
>
>  On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 11:51 PM, Jesse Martin (Pathoschild) <
>  pathoschild at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>  > Gerard,
>  >
>  > I disagree with your proposal.
>  >
>  > I think some of the proposed criteria are very arbitrary. What is
>  > "sufficiently expressive" for a modern encyclopedia? Does that prevent
>  > many natural languages (such as Navajo) which don't have words for
>  > advanced technology? Wouldn't "insufficiently expressive" languages be
>  > perfectly sufficient for the vast majority of concepts, even if they
>  > might not have an article on quantum superstring theory?
>  >
>  > Further, I've painstakingly followed every thread in this discussion,
>  > and I have not seen any strong argument for allowing languages nobody
>  > uses natively. Wikimedia wikis exist to make the sum of human
>  > knowledge available to everyone, not to practice or preserve
>  > languages.
>  >
>  > I think the argument that they act as a common language for scholars
>  > of the ancient language is not valid; we are not a forum for academic
>  > exchange. An English scholar of Ancient Greek can (and probably does)
>  > use English in his everyday life, including research and
>  > communication. An exception can (and is) made for Wikisource, which
>  > exists to collect existing literature, but other projects in dead
>  > languages do not serve our mission. A scholar of Proto-Indo-European
>  > does not communicate in Proto-Indo-European.
>  >
>  > So while I'm open to further debate, I currently disagree with this
>  > change.
>  >
>  > (As an aside, the vague statement in the policy you point out is only
>  > there because you consistently blocked a majority agreement to remove
>  > it.)
>  >
>  > --
>  > 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
>