There is a slight difference.
The Roman Catholic Church is still working to define how translate new words in Latin
because Latin is still used in official communications or during official events bit what
is more importan it's used for the Canon law
(
http://www.vatican.va/latin/latin_codex.html).
Here the list of new words:
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/institutions_connected/latinitas/document…
and here the list of all official documents:
http://www.vatican.va/latin/latin_index.html
In this case there is a body who is keeping this language still live. It's not a
mother tongue, but we cannot say that it's died because there is an entity who is
maintining it updated.
I don't know if the same happens for the old greek.
I agree that projects like Wikisource or Wiktionary (mainly to recreate historical genesis
of the words) fit really well with both languages, but for the old greek there is still
the problem to adapt the new words without using personal or creative words but also to
define what is the source to use to solve disputed translations.
Kind regards
Ilario
In data 07/Feb/2017 09.59.50, Oliver Stegen ha scritto:
Hmmm - I'm afraid I cannot agree with your depiction of such a
categorical difference between Latin and Classical Greek.
Let's start with Latin: According to
Pei (1976) and Herman (1996),
Latin was displaced gradually in spoken form
between 400-700; > it was in official use up to
the first decades of the 19th century [as] the language of
research and philosophy in Europe, although Latin was not the
native tongue for any group of people during this time; by AD
1000, Latin's daughter languages> > Spanish, Portuguese,
Catalan, Provençal, French, Italian, Rheto-Romance, and Rumanian
were all firmly established as native languages of Southern
Europe, to the exclusion of Latin as a first language (!).
> Now to Classical Greek: The two
strands of [grc]
would be Ancient Greek (starting with Homer etc) and Koine Greek
(the language of the New Testament); please note that Ethnologue
subsumes Classical Greek and Koine Greek as dialects of "Ancient
Greek". The history of the Greek language (cf. Horrocks 2009)
actually bears out almost a tug-of-war between the more literary
Classical and the more colloquial Koine, including the movement
of Atticism in Byzantine times, and its grip on Katharevousa
over the last two centuries, where Classical Greek finally "lost
out" to Demotic only 40 years ago in modern Greece. Also, Koine
Greek is just as "alive" in the Orthodox Church as Latin was in
the Catholic Church up to Vatican II (cf. the discussion at >
http://orthodoxoutpost.com/?p=164> ).
My conclusion: Latin and Classical Greek are very
comparable in their history, development and language use,
including the fact that both are dead languages now, and both
are still vehicles of (more or less successful) communication in
their respective churches. Hence, I cannot support a decision to
grant a wikipedia to one and deny it to another - especially if
there are communities willing and able to guarantee and
demonstrate the success of their wikipedia.
> Herman, Jozsef. “The End of the
History of Latin”> > Romance Philology> .
49:4 (1996) pp364-382.
Horrocks, Geoffrey. > Greek: A History of the
Language and
its Speakers> . Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, 2009.
> Pei, Mario.> > The
Story of Latin and the Romance Languages> . Harper &
Row: New York, 1976.
Fwiw,
Oliver
> On 07-Feb-17 06:36, Gerard Meijssen
wrote:
>
>
>
>
> > Hoi,
>
The point of teaching GRC is to
help understand the old
documents in GRC. As it is not a living language the point
is that students learn it as it was. Innovation is therefore
counter to the objective of teaching the language. Compare
this to Latin; the same applies but it has always been
spoken / used in the Roman Catholic church so it is a
language where documents can be found in Latin that are from
many later centuries and it does have this history of
innovation.
>
Thanks,
>
GerardM
>
> On 3 February 2017 at 18:23, Jan van
Steenbergen > > <> > ijzeren.jan(a)gmail.com> > >>
wrote:
> >
>
> > > > > > The issue is that grc
developped over time and consequently what standard
should be followed?> >
> > > > >
> > There are plenty of
languages with Wikipedias that do not have a single
written standard. For example:
> > > > >
>
> > * Silesian has two or
three different orthographies, all of which can be
used (in other words, it's the author who decides
which orthography an article is in).
> > > > >
>
> > * Norman has four
different dialects, all of which can be used. Articles
are also categorised by the dialects they are written
in.
> > > > >
>
> > * Rusyn has multiple
dialects as well, but AFAIK they try to stick to the
dialect used in Slovakia.
> > > > >
>
> > * Some languages (like
Serbo-Croat) can be written in multiple alphabets and
have special software for switching between them.
> > > > >
>
> > * If I recall
correctly, I have seen cases of the same article
having multiple versions in one Wikipedia.
> > > > >
> > > > >
>
> > In other words, all
kinds of possibilities. My guess is that in the case
of grc it will be Attic Greek for 99%, but if there
will be a few articles in Doric or Koine, then I'd say
that would be an enrichment.
> > > > >
> > > > >
>
> > Cheers,
> > > > >
>
> > Jan
> > > > >
> > > > >
>
>
> >
> > 2017-02-02 21:52 GMT+01:00
Gerard Meijssen > > > <> > > gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com>
> > >> > > :
> > >
> > > > Hoi,
> > > > > > >
> > > > The issue is that grc developped over
time
and consequently what standard should be
followed?
> > > > > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > >
> > > > GerardM
> > > > > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > Op do 2 feb. 2017 om 15:52 schreef
MF-Warburg <> > > >
mfwarburg(a)googlemail.com> > > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > Shouldn't
we, when we accept this line of
argument, also accept Ancient Greek
(grc)?
> > > >
> > > > 2017-02-02
12:34 GMT+01:00 Oliver Stegen > > > > > <> >
> > > oliver_stegen(a)sil.org> > > > > >> > > > >
:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi,
> > > > >
I found Jan's exposition most
helpful and actually
convincing - thanks!> > > > >
> > > > > In
response, I am
no longer
opposed to make lfn eligible.
Go ahead! (And may it thrive.)> > >
> >
> > > > >
> > > > > > Oliver
> > > > >
> > > > >
>
> > > > >
> > > > > > On 02-Feb-17
10:37, Gerard Meijssen
wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
Hoi,
> > > > > > > I
like the argument put
forward by Jan and
Michael. Personally I
do not mind when
people are busy with
knowledge in any
language and we do
know that some say
that the WMF is in the
business of
education.. Surely
people get educated in
this way.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > The
problem is in two
parts. How do we
prevent an environment
that is out of control
... (This is not
specific to a conlang)
and two, what does it
take to prevent death
by lack of attention
in the future.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > The
first is not really a
problem we have a
precedent whereby a
project can be closed.
The second does not
need to be a problem
when there is
attention for its
quality (also
automated).
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > So
I am rather positive
to allow for a change
of heart.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
GerardM
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > On 1 February 2017
at 12:57, Jan van
Steenbergen > > > > >
> > <> > > > > > > ijzeren.jan(a)gmail.com> > > >
> > > >> > > > > >
wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
>
> > > > > > > > I'm
not a member of
the Langcom, but
I've been
subscribed to
this mailing
list for quite a
while now. Since
my primary field
of interest is
constructed
languages, let
me tell you why
I am inclined to
support this
request. Mind, I
am in no way
involved with
LFN itself.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > My
point of view is
that there is
only one
criterion that
should really
matter for
allowing a
project to
exist, namely
the question: is
it sustainable?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > At
present, we have
Wikipedias in
seven
constructed
languages:
Esperanto,
Volapük, Ido,
Interlingua,
Interlingue
(Occidental),
Novial and
Lojban. Of
these, only
Esperanto has
native speakers,
albeit an
extremely low
number compared
to virtually all
ethnic languages
with a
Wikipedia. Yet,
the project is
thriving. With
236,000
articles it is
#32 on the list,
which is more
than Wikipedias
in for example
Greek, Danish,
Bulgarian and
Hindi. Ido and
Interlingua (#98
and #109) are
doing fine as
well, in spite
of the fact that
both languages
have no native
speakers and
less than a
thousand users.
The number of
Volapük users is
not more than a
few dozens, but
the "Vükiped" is
doing reasonably
well anyway.
Even Interlingue
seems to manage
somehow,
although its
number of users
(I always avoid
the word
"speakers" in
the case of
constructed
languages) is
probably less
than ten.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > The
only project
that IMO has
become a failure
is Novial.
Currently it has
1,644 articles.
About 50 of them
have some real
critical mass,
perhaps another
200 are more
than just one or
two lines of
text, tables and
infoboxes. After
its foundation
it had a few
enthusiastic,
active users,
but they all
seem to have
vanished a long
time ago. Since
2011 practically
nothing has been
happening over
there. New
articles still
appear every
once in a while,
but most of
these are the
work of people
who don't even
know the
language and
just copy info
from other
articles, giving
articles whose
sole content is:
"George Clooney
is an American
actor".
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > Wikipedia
projects in
three other
constructed
languages have
been closed in
the past, for
different
reasons:
Siberian because
it turned out a
hoax, Toki Poni
because it is a
minimalistic
language with
just ±120 words,
Klingon because
it is a work of
fiction with a
vocabulary too
small for
creating a
viable project
in it. For the
same reason,
Quenya and
Sindarin are not
suitable either.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > Anyway,
compare all this
to Wikipedias in
African
languages, for
example Oromo: a
major language
with 60 million
speakers, but
only 726
articles, most
of which are
oneliners like
"Germany is a
country in
Europe" or even
empty. Where's
the educational
value in that?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > Speaking
about
educational
value, I think
this boils down
to two things:
communicating
valuable
content, and
working with the
language
itself.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > When
it comes to
perusing
Wikipedia
because one is
looking for
info, a vast
majority of the
projects we have
are quite
unnecessary.
Speakers of
Bavarian,
Luxemburgish,
Rhaeto-Romance,
Belarusian,
Bashkir or
Pennsylvania
German won't be
looking for
information in
their native
language, they
will look for
info where they
can find it, and
in a language
they speak
fluently, i.e.
in German,
Russian, English
etc. Wikipedias
in languages
like that serve
an entirely
different
purpose: they
offer a platform
for generating
content in a
particular
language, for
practicing it,
developing it,
showcasing it.
In other words,
these projects
are there for
the sake of the
language itself
rather than the
information
presented in it.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > And
in this respect,
numbers of
native speakers
are completely
irrelevant.
Latin has no
native speakers,
but its
Wikipedia is
still a success.
What really
matters, in
other words, is
whether there
are people
willing to write
in it and read
in it.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > LFN
is of more
recent date than
the other
auxlang
projects, but
remarkably vivid
nonetheless. I
don't know if it
really has 100
active users;
numbers like
that are
notoriously
difficult to
verify, and the
only persons who
really have an
idea about these
figures are the
same ones who
have a vested
interest in
exaggerating
them. But it is
clear that there
is a large
number of people
involved in it
anyway, enough
to generate
quite some
content. Of
course, nobody
knows what will
happen when the
author of the
languages stops
being involved
with the
language for
whatever reason:
it might go down
the same road as
Novial, but that
would be a worst
case scenario.
In any case, the
LFN wiki at
Wikia (> > > > >
> > >
http://lfn.wikia.com/wiki/Paje_xef> > > > > > > > )
has 3,774
pages at
present, and
keeps growing.
Quite a lot of
these pages are
substantial
articles, some
of them having
even more
content than
their
equivalents in
the major
European
languages.
Obviously, not
all pages could
be moved to a
Wikipedia in
LFN, as they
also contain
translations of
poetry and
prose, but
still, even at
the very start
this Wikipedia
would be at a
higher level
than those in
Interlingue,
Novial, Volapük
and Lojban. Not
only in terms of
numbers, but
also in terms of
substance and
quality. So why
not give it a
chance?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > Best
regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Jan
van Steenbergen
(User:IJzeren
Jan)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
>
> > > > > > > 2017-02-01 10:15
GMT+01:00
Milos Rancic > > > >
> > > > <> > > > > > > > millosh(a)gmail.com> >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > On Wed, Feb
1, 2017 at
7:44 AM,
Gerard
Meijssen
> > > > > > > >
<> > > >
> > > > > gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com> > > > > > > >
> > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> We had in
the past
really well
functioning
languages that
were also
shifted
> > > > > > > >
> to Wikia.
It is all part
and parcel of
the original
idea of the
policy to
> > > > > > > >
> prevent
the easy
creation of
new projects.
This was
needed because
at the
> > > > > > > >
> time
there was a
groundswell of
sentiment to
prevent new
projects all
> > > > > > > >
> together.
> > > > > > > >
>
> > > > > > > >
> When one
member of the
committee says
"NO", it will
not happen.
Wen doubts
> > > > > > > >
> are
raised it is
not no. So
please be
clear what
your
intentions
are.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > True.
Here is my
more precise
position.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
My basic
position is on
the Amir's
line: So weak
against
("Wikia
> > > > > > > >
should be good
enough") that
I don't want
to be the one
who blocks it.
> > > > > > > >
However, for
me it *is*
mandatory to
have a good
reasoning in
favor.
> > > > > > > >
That's why I
asked Michael
to make one. I
see that as
mandatory
> > > > > > > >
because of the
future
request.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
There is a
tiny line,
invisible from
both sides,
which differs
> > > > > > > >
relevant
institutions
from
irrelevant
ones. LangCom
exists to keep
> > > > > > > >
Wikimedia
relevant
institution in
relation to
the languages.
I would
> > > > > > > >
define
relevancy as.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
We are still
on the
relevant side
and LFN is one
of the
possible lines
> > > > > > > >
and we need to
make a good
decision here.
And I have to
say that what
> > > > > > > >
Amir's said
about LFN
doesn't sound
promising at
the moment.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
_______________________________________________
> > > > > > > >
Langcom
mailing list
> > > > > > > > > Langcom(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > > > > > >
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
_______________________________________________
> > > > > > >
Langcom mailing list
> > > > > > > > Langcom(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > > > > >
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
>
> _______________________________________________
Langcom mailing list
> > > > > > > Langcom(a)lists.wikimedia.org> > > > >
>
> > > > > > >
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > > > >
_______________________________________________
Langcom mailing list
> > > > > > Langcom(a)lists.wikimedia.org> > > > >
> > > > > >
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
_______________________________________________
Langcom mailing list
> > > > > Langcom(a)lists.wikimedia.org> > > >
> > > > >
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > > > > >
_______________________________________________
Langcom mailing list
> > > > Langcom(a)lists.wikimedia.org> > >
> > > >
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > > >
>
_______________________________________________
Langcom mailing list
> > > Langcom(a)lists.wikimedia.org> >
> > >
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
Langcom mailing list
> > Langcom(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> >
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom>
>
>
_______________________________________________
> Langcom mailing list
> Langcom(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom