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

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
For a constructed language writing an encyclopaedia is in many ways the holy
grail. Being able to do so succesfully proves that the constructed language
can be used to express about any subject. Both a Wikisource and a Wiktionary
are static resources while the value of constructed languages is in active
resources.

As you indicate that there are arguments why you come to exactly the
opposite viewpoint, I am interested in learning them.
Thanks,
     GerardM

On Jan 25, 2008 11:49 AM, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 25/01/2008, Pharos <pharosofalexandria at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
>
> Comparing Volapuk to Esperanto is interesting in this regard. (Not
> considering the issues of concern about the Volapuk Wikipedia.)
> Volapuk is a conlang which is actually older than Esperanto and was
> designed to fill a similar need. However, Esperanto has retained its
> popularity and is actively used as an auxiliary language, with a
> reasonable number of speakers and an active community using and
> writing in it - whereas Volapuk has all but fallen into disuse. A
> Wikisource and Wiktionary in Volapuk would arguably be useful to the
> world, a Wikipedia not so much.
>
>
> > 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)?
>
>
> I think it's a bit too subjective to make it a criterion, but it may
> be a useful indicator if such an article has reached some sort of
> quality status (e.g. FA or GA in en:wp) in a large natural language
> Wikipedia.
>
>
> - d.
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>