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

[Nathan]

Sounds like something you should work out through the language
subcommittee before quoting competing policy interpretations on
Foundation-l.

~Nathan

On Jan 25, 2008 10:33 AM, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hoi,
> As long as there is no alternative, the current policy stands.
> Thanks,
>     GerardM
>
> On Jan 25, 2008 4:28 PM, Jesse Martin (Pathoschild) <pathoschild at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> > Hoi,
> > GerardM is mistaken. There is majority subcommittee agreement that
> > this requirement (as an exception) is vague and unacceptable, and
> > should be replaced.
> >
> > He is also misusing it as an exception, as I explained below in an
> > email I sent to a different thread (which GerardM conveniently
> > ignored).
> >
> > ------------
> > The exception for constructed languages that GerardM mentions is not
> > an exception at all.
> >
> > ...
> >
> > 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)
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>