[Wikipedia-l] starting a new language

Emma amanuelamente at gmail.com
Wed Oct 18 06:35:57 UTC 2006 

Thank you all guys. Somebody have already started what I am looking for.

On 18/10/06, ScottL <scott at mu.org> wrote:
>
>    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
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>



-- 
Amanuel Amente
XL in life

More information about the Wikipedia-l mailing list