[Foundation-l] Fwd: Tokipona

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
Jesse is fond of reminding people that when members of the language
committee express things it is their own opinion. I am happy to echo this.
We have been trying to get to grips with the notion of constructed languages
for some time now and it has been a frustration that it is not possible to
get to objective criteria. Objective criteria are needed because that gets
the personal bits out of it.

I has been clear that I am willing to discriminate against new projects in
constructed languages. I am not willing to deny projects on constructed
languages because they are constructive languages. The exception in the
policy is exactly to overcome a requirement for "native" speakers. This has
always been the case. When there is a big group of contributors willing to
make any language project a success, I am happy to have them do this. My
requirements are simple. The language has to be contemporary for a project
that aims to inform about contemporary subjects. There has to be a solid
grounding linguistically and from an information point of view to allow a
Wikipeida. When this is the case, what would be the argument to deny it ?
What would be the difference between a natural living language and a
constructed language ? In the end ask yourself, what difference does it make
to you ? It is other people that care. What difference does it make to you..
it is not as if they take anything away from you that is yours.... ??
Thanks,
     GerardM

On Jan 22, 2008 1:06 AM, Jesse Martin (Pathoschild) <pathoschild at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hello,
>
> The exception for constructed languages that GerardM mentions is not
> an exception at all.
>
> The line he's referring to is the second sentence in this requirement:
> "The proposal has a sufficient number of living native speakers to
> form a viable community and audience. If the proposal is for an
> artificial language such as Esperanto, it must have a reasonable
> degree of recognition as determined by discussion."
>
> That phrase has been in the policy since the very beginning, before
> there was a requirement for native speakers. You can see this in the
> very first draft written on 11 November 2006, at <
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meta:Language_proposal_policy?oldid=466496
> >. (This draft predates my joining the subcommittee, so no
> subcommittee discussion shaped it.)
>
> That original draft reads as such: "The proposal has a sufficient
> number of speakers to form a viable community and audience. If the
> proposal is for an artificial language such as Esperanto, it must have
> a reasonable degree of recognition as determined by discussion."
>
> It was then intended not as an exception, but as an __additional
> requirement__. The requirement for native speakers was introduced
> nearly a year later on 17 October 2007 (see <
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meta:Language_proposal_policy?diff=711692
> >). The __extra requirement__ for constructed languages did not then
> exempt them from the new requirement; it was simply left behind by
> accident, and only noticed recently and misinterpreted.
>
> As such, the current policy prohibits constructed languages *and* has
> a special requirement for them (which is contradictory, but that's
> because it's just an omission), it does *not* exempt them from needing
> native speakers.
>
> This is the current matter of discussion: should we have an exception
> for constructed languages after all? If we exempt them from needing
> native languages, do we apply a special requirement for them or not?
>
> --
> Yours cordially,
> Jesse Martin (Pathoschild)
> (No messages by those on the language subcommittee are official.)
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>