[Wikipedia-l] starting a new language

[ScottL]

   Are you advocating dis-including a language because it does not have 
an acceptable abbreviation?  Or are you maintaining that it is not 
actually a language?

   If the first, then I suspect that is not a good reason to disallow a 
new wikipedia to be formed.

   If the second, then we are still "'recognize[ing]' what some 
activists believe".  Though an appeal to the processes of an external 
body as part of our process does seem to mitigate that somewhat though I 
think that is questionable in terms of our principals.

SKL

GerardM wrote:
> Hoi,
> In the past many things have been done that we should regret. We have on the
> one hand Brion who insists that we maintain the RFC to do with indicating
> content, on the other hand I advocate to use the ISO-639-3 standard and
> engage in the process to get adequate resolution on what is to be considered
> a language. Then there are people who consider that it does not make a
> difference and that we can do as we like.
> 
> Yes, we have several codes that are wrong. Codes that are contrary to the
> terms of use of the ISO-639 code. The fact that we have done these things
> does not sanction that we continue to do so.
> 
> When Samogitian gets the zog code, it means that we should be able to use
> that code. From an RFC point of view it seems that we are not allowed to do
> this. This is as foolhardy as insisting on using codes that are patently
> wrong and incompatible with what is done in the rest of the world.
> 
> ISO is working on codes where dialects are given an official code. When this
> happens the position of these codes will become even more untenable. It is
> to be prefered to accept the best codes that comply with current practices
> and work on amending the practices where needed.
> 
> The difference between a language and a dialect is often a problematic one.
> Issues are often highly politicized. It is absolutely wrong to "recognize"
> what some activists believe for reasons that have nothing to do with
> linguistics. Engaging in the process to get the recognition through ISO and
> Ethnologue is open to us, let us go that route.
> 
> Thanks,
>    GerardM
> 
> On 10/17/06, Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Arns has a really good point. This is based on precedent.
>>
>> While we do try to follow certain conventions where possible, we do
>> have some inconsistencies with standards. But we're not ISOpedia.
>> Whether we conform to standards or not is our own choice.
>>
>> In the past, we have generally had codes in the form of fiu-vro,
>> bat-smg, and map-bms.
>>
>> This is despite the fact that Võro, Samogitian, and Banyumasan are
>> considered by the Ethnologue (and many others) to be dialects of
>> Estonian, Lithuanian, and Javanese respectively.
>>
>> We are not perfect.
>>
>> Mark
>>
>> On 17/10/06, Zordsdavini iz Litvy <zordsdavini at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Latgalian is going in the same way as Samogitian. Soon Samogitian will
>> have
>>> iso. It will be ZOG. For now it use bat-smg. The latgalian will have
>> iso,
>>> too, I hope because Latgalian have more tradition than Samogitian. When
>>> Samogitian wiki was starting we decided to use bat-smg. I think the best
>>> code for now is bat-ltg. To write about dictionary differences can
>> proposer.
>>> I'll tell him.
>>>
>>> Arns
>>>
>>> 2006/10/17, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com>:
>>>> Hoi,
>>>> There are two issues.
>>>> * What/ is/ the code for the moment
>>>> * Get recognition for Latgalian as a language.
>>>>
>>>> People have considered languages like Min-Nan and Yue as a dialect of
>>>> Chinese for a long time. They HAD to use codes like zh-min-nan because
>>>> this was necessary to comply with the standards. At this moment we
>> have
>>>> 7602 languages that are recognised in ISO-639-3. This is a big
>>>> improvement over what was in ISO-639-2. The ISO-639-3 codes will
>> become
>>>> part of how languages are seen in the near future on the Internet. I
>> am
>>>> afraid that Latgalian is at this moment considered a dialect of
>> Latvian.
>>>> I am also sure that there are many other "languages/dialects" that are
>>>> in a similar situation. Either because people are afronted because
>> what
>>>> it considers a language they consider a dialect or the other way
>> around.
>>>> There are also many people who consider something a dialect of for
>>>> instance Italian while everybody knows that Italian was constructed
>>>> after the unification of Italy and, that Italian is based on
>> Florentine.
>>>> The point I am making here there is a lot of confusion and there is a
>>>> lot of posturing based on bad information. Having to base the code for
>>>> Latgalian on Latvian is the best for the moment.
>>>>
>>>> When you consider Latgalian a language, there are processes open to us
>>>> to have this considered by organisations like Ethnologue and ISO. We
>>>> have contacts that may help us achieve this. In order to get to that
>>>> stage, it is necessary to jump through certain hoops. One of these is
>> to
>>>> demonstrate that there is indeed this difference that warrants
>> Latgalian
>>>> to be considered a language. Aspects of this are also showing
>> literature
>>>> and current use of the language. One of the first resources would be a
>>>> Swadesh list where both Latvian and Latgalian can be compared.
>>>>
>>>> FYI I am from an area of the Netherlands; Westfriesland where they
>> used
>>>> to speak a language; Westfries. It has a literature; it has a grammar
>> it
>>>> is not understood by people who speak Dutch. There are dialects of
>>>> Westfries there are dictionaries of Westfries and there are revival
>>>> societies that give cabaret performances in Westfries. At some stage I
>>>> am sure that someone will ask for a Wikipedia in Westfries. I would
>> not
>>>> stop them. I KNOW that it takes relatively little effort to make the
>>>> case for Westfries. In WiktionaryZ I would welcome dictionaries in
>>>> Westfries or Latgalian... NB Westfries is not West Frisian .. which
>> imho
>>>> is a complete misnomer.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>>    GerardM
>>>>
>>>> Zordsdavini iz Litvy wrote:
>>>>> latgalian has long tradition of writing system. It was in 1918-1944
>>>> second
>>>>> official language. Considering of dialect status is political. And
>> there
>>>> are
>>>>> very active people which are working on latgalian language life.
>> It's
>>>>> dialect like neopolitanian or venecian. We say it's the language.
>>>>>
>>>>> Arns
>>>>>
>>>>> 2006/10/17, GerardM <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com>:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hoi,
>>>>>> The code bat is a "collective code" for Baltic (other). Latgalian
>>>> however
>>>>>> is
>>>>>> considered a dialect of Latvian and therefore it is not "other".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.ethnologue.com/show_language.asp?code=lav
>>>>>> http://www.sil.org/iso639-3/documentation.asp?id=bat
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>    GerardM
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 10/17/06, Angela <beesley at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 10/17/06, GerardM <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hoi,
>>>>>>>> According to Ethnologue Latgalian is a dialect of Latvian. From
>> my
>>>>>> point
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> view, there is not even a proposed code to be used for your
>> proposed
>>>>>>>> Wikipedia that would be acceptable. Acceptable would be something
>>>> like
>>>>>>>> "lv-latg" or "lav-latg" ..
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There's a test wiki at
>> http://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Test-wp/ltg
>>>>>>> The code bat-ltv has been suggested.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Angela
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Wikipedia-l mailing list
>>>> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
>>>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Ok^ ek^ besla ikv Olmok Vzauep^evk
>>> :)
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Wikipedia-l mailing list
>>> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
>>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>>>
>>
>> --
>> Refije dirije lanmè yo paske nou posede pwòp bato.
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikipedia-l mailing list
>> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l