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

[Pharos]

But, as much as I am sympathetic to constructed languages, I do not
think that there is any rational exception that can be made for them,
and I doubt that in any argument they can be preserved wholly on the
basis of such an arbitrary exception.

Rather, I believe in a reasonable compromise that retains the
useful-to-the-modern-world "historical" and constructed languages, and
keeps out those that aren't written anymore.

And I know you have been an advocate of Latin Wikipedia.  I would not
call such a language "reconstructed", but rather, a living and
evolving "classical language", with an active contemporary literature.
 And I do not believe Latin to be unique in this regard.

What do you think of the proposal for using the demonstrated
notability of a language's contemporary literature (as demonstrated by
a Featured Article on the subject in the English Wikipedia) as the
criteria for the approval of a primarily-written language (such as the
"historical" and constructed languages)?

On Jan 24, 2008 2:40 AM, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
> >
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>