[Foundation-l] "Historical" languages and constructed languages

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
There is no decision against constructed languages. There is a point of
contention. Constructed languages have a special place in the policy and
constructed languages are explicitly excluding reconstructed languages. The
issue is that this is a point that is not shared.
Thanks,
     GerardM

On Jan 24, 2008 3:04 AM, Pharos <pharosofalexandria at gmail.com> wrote:

> >Jesse Martin (Pathoschild) <pathoschild at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >There is no real difference between a historical language used by
> >enthusiasts and a constructed language used by enthusiasts.
>
> I agree with this point, but from an opposite, more inclusionary
> perspective.
>
> If fact, I think I hear echoes of some of the points I raised at
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Language_subcommittee and
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Language_subcommittee/2008
> :)
>
> Which is why I must protest the recent decision by the Language
> subcommittee against any and all Wikipedias in "historical" languages,
> and the possibility of that decision being extended to any and all
> Wikipedias in constructed languages.
>
> Now, all "historical" languages are not created equal. Some have no
> contemporary literature, like Anglo-Saxon. Others have an active
> contemporary literature, like Latin. Languages like Latin I would
> classify as living "classical languages" that have a contemporary
> literature, but few or no modern speakers. It is these languages that
> are comparable in application to constructed languages, and that
> should share the same criteria for inclusion, which IMO should be the
> breadth of their contemporary literature.
>
> Some people would say that languages without native speakers are
> useless. I disagree profoundly. When Newton wrote Principia, was he
> writing in a 'useless' language? If a language has an active
> literature, it is not useless. Yes, primarily written languages are
> not ideally suited for teaching young children basic facts about the
> world. But they do have an important place in the intellectual sphere.
> Imagine Catholic seminary students, from different parts of the world,
> writing articles on church history, using the original Latin sources.
> Would not such articles be ripe for translation into many different
> languages?
>
> And the argument that people are being siphoned off from their native
> language Wikipedia to work on Latin just doesn't make any sense; it is
> far more likely that the unique prospect of a Latin Wikipedia is
> drawing people in who would not otherwise be associated with Wikimedia
> projects at all.
>
> Of course, the big question is, where do you draw the line? And how do
> you draw it effectively, so that we don't exhaust the resources of the
> resources of the Language subcommittee in fruitless research? As you
> might have guessed, I'm a strong proponent of requiring active
> contemporary literatures. ISO doesn't evaluate this, so we need
> alternate criteria. One way to determine if a contemporary
> contemporary literature is legitimate, is if its legitimacy is
> respected by scholars of the "historical" language (as opposed to just
> being a product of amateurs with no connection to mainstream
> academia).
>
> But if the Language subcommittee wants something really simple and
> quantifiable, I'll give you this modest proposal: Is a language's
> contemporary literature notable enough to be the subject of a Featured
> Article on English Wikipedia?
>
> Yup, simple as that. So, can [[Modern Latin literature]] make it?-
> probably, with some work. [[Modern Anglo-Saxon literature]]?- almost
> definitely not. [[Modern Ancient Greek literature]]?- maybe. This way,
> -you- don't have to do the research. The Featured Article Candidates
> team will do it for you.
>
> And of course, these prospective Wikipedias would also still need a
> significant initial contributing community, like all prospective
> Wikipedia.
>
> Thanks,
> User:Pharos
>
>
>
>
> Jesse Martin (Pathoschild) <pathoschild at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>